2 results
Reducing high dose antipsychotic therapy (HDAT) in a community mental health team (CMHT)
- Richard Walsh, Sonn Patel, Valentina Loddo, Rebecca Fahy, Elizabeth Walsh
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 7 / Issue S1 / June 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 June 2021, pp. S110-S111
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Aims
The consensus statement (CR190) of The Royal College of Psychiatrists states that the benefit of prescribing HDAT does not outweigh the risk of the increased side effect burden. HDAT is defined as the “daily dose of a single antipsychotic exceeding the upper limit for that drug as stated in the Summary of Product Characteristic (SPC) or British National Formulary (BNF),” and as the cumulative daily dose of two or more antipsychotics (for combined prescription). The prevalence of HDAT has been shown to vary widely and protocols for monitoring poorly implemented. In 2018 we completed a baseline survey of the prevalence of HDAT within our CMHT. We assessed our prescribing practice as compared to seven best practice audit criteria, which were adopted. Our aim is to resurvey closing the audit loop to 1) establish the current prevalence of HDAT and 2) assess the impact the intervention on prescribing practice.
MethodMulti-disciplinary case notes for all registered patients were studied. A database was created including sociodemographic details, chart diagnosis, and medication. The proportion of patients prescribed antipsychotic medication was identified. The dose of each medication was converted into a percentage of BNF maximum recommended dose for that drug. For combined antipsychotic prescription, the cumulative dose was obtained adding the single percentages together. Exceeding 100% was regarded as HDAT. All HDAT patients were assessed against identified audit criteria as outlined by the Humber NHS Foundation Trust.
ResultOf a total of 246 patients, 177 (72%) were prescribed antipsychotic medication. Of these, 14 (8%) were in receipt of HDAT. This compared to 68% prescribed antipsychotics and 9% in receipt of HDAT in the baseline audit. The average cumulative dose for every category (oral medication, depot and both) was calculated with a range from 1% to 168% (mean = 70%) for oral antipsychotic (single/combined), 1% to 193% (mean = 50%) for depots and 20% to 257% (mean = 95%) for combination of oral and depot. This compares with ranges of 1.6% to 215% (mean = 44.3%) for oral antipsychotic (single/combined), 0.04% to 100% (mean = 25.8%) for depots and 21% to 425% (mean = 119.6%) for combination of oral and depot in the baseline audit. Similar to the baseline survey no patient met all seven audit criteria but there was better adherence overall with best practice guidance. Blood and ECG monitoring were the most consistent parameters measured.
ConclusionLower HDAT was achieved post intervention. Results, whilst positive, indicate the need for ongoing audit to maintain best standards.
Professional training and case-load mix within a community mental health team
- Richard Walsh, Rebecca Fahy, Ala Abdelgadir, Elizabeth Walsh, Sonn Patel
-
- Journal:
- BJPsych Open / Volume 7 / Issue S1 / June 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 June 2021, p. S226
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Aims
Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTS) are now the cornerstone of modern mental health care and play a central role in assessment, diagnosis and care coordination. CMHTs vary widely in their service provision and composition. Within teams there is latitude for variation of professional roles but the extent to which different disciplines undertake generic and profession-specific work is poorly defined. This cross-sectional study aims to establish how professional training influences the distribution of case-load mix within a general adult CMHT
MethodThe GR1 CMHT provides care to a mixed urban/rural population of 25,000 in Galway city and Connemara. A review was conducted of multi-disciplinary case notes for all patients actively registered with the team for a period of one year. Name, age, gender, whether referred or admitted in the past year, medication and day hospital attendance were recorded. Clinical diagnoses were recorded but, where missing, verified with a relevant team member. The team consultant reviewed and verified the 1CD-10 primary clinical diagnosis for all patients. Evidence of clinical input by multidisciplinary team members was recorded from clinical files with the final electronic database being checked by each professional for accuracy. We examined any input over the past year rather than
frequency of input. Patient characteristics and diagnosis by professional discipline were examined using descriptive statistics.
ResultOf a total of 246 patients registered to the team, 37.8% (N = 93) saw one, 34.6% (N = 85) saw two and 24.4% (N = 60) saw 3 or more team members. Of those who saw three or more team members, psychotic disorders represented the majority diagnoses (40%, N = 24) followed by personality disorders (25%, N = 15) and affective disorders (15%, N = 9). Patients were most commonly seen by a doctor (91.5%, N = 225) followed by community mental health nurses (CMHNs) (52.8%, N = 130). Doctors saw 85% or more of all patients grouped by ICD-10 diagnoses. The majority of social work and occupational therapy case-mix comprised psychotic disorders (SW = 44.2%, OT = 34.2%) followed by personality disorders (SW = 25.6%, OT = 23.7%). Of psychology case-mix, the highest was personality
disorders at 41.6% (N = 13) followed by anxiety and related disorders at 25% (N = 8). CMHN case-mix was highest for psychotic disorders at 44.6% (N = 58) followed by 21.5% mood disorders (N = 28).
ConclusionThis cross sectional survey informs how we currently target our specialist resources. We will now develop this to include frequency of contact to inform resource allocation and skill mix.