Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:58:23.478Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Collateral History-Taking on Acute General Adult and Older Person Inpatient Wards: A Quality Improvement Project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Joanna Steptoe*
Affiliation:
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
Harlene Deol
Affiliation:
Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Joanna Male
Affiliation:
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
Erica Riviere
Affiliation:
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
Roisin McCarthy
Affiliation:
Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

To investigate current practice of collateral history-taking on inpatient adult and older person wards in Leicestershire Partnership Trust. COVID-19 visiting restrictions raised concerns that the collateral history may be side-lined due to the physical absence of carers. Collateral history is important in developing a working diagnosis and assessing level of function, and is part of ongoing assessment and formulation.

Methods

An initial audit of 46 patient records from 3 inpatient wards (2 adult and 1 functional old age) was carried out in January 2021 when visiting restrictions were in place. In response, a questionnaire was distributed and 2 focus groups of junior doctors conducted later in 2021; the aim being to explore factors affecting collateral history taking. A re-audit was completed in October 2022 when visiting was reinstated. 48 patient records were audited. Old Age organic wards for dementia assessment were not included in data collection, as collateral history-taking is unavoidable for initial assessment of those presenting with significant cognitive impairment.

Results

In 2021 and 2022, 33% and 38% of sampled patients had a collateral history taken in the first 14 days of admission. Where a collateral history was omitted, only 10% and 13% were attempted and 46% and 27% planned. Associated themes were identified from the questionnaire and focus groups including consent; accessibility of contact details; lack of confidence and variability in history-taking; accountability/ clarity on whose role it is to complete the task; lack of time/space and poor consensus on how to document a collateral history.

Conclusion

The results of the re-audit continue to show poor collateral history completion early in admission for both old age and adult inpatient wards despite reinstatement of visiting after the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous issues affect the completion and documentation of good quality of collateral histories within inpatient settings of Leicestershire Partnership Trust. These have been categorised into staff, system, environmental and other factors.

This audit forms part of a wider quality improvement project. The proposed actions are as follows:

  1. 1. To share findings locally via the Trust Audit and Quality Improvement department, Trust email and Consultant Medical Advisory Committee;

  2. 2. To improve education through Trust induction, regular bitesize teaching and development of a crib sheet to be placed on each ward;

  3. 3. To consider wider quality improvement projects in line with themes identified above;

  4. 4. To undertake a further re-audit in November 2023.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.