Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:12:21.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

High Risk Care Plans in Liaison Psychiatry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2022

Yasmin Abbasi
Affiliation:
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom
Claire Jones
Affiliation:
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom
Marina Clark
Affiliation:
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom
Mohammad Meher Ali Chaudhry*
Affiliation:
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom
Kit Akass
Affiliation:
Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Surrey, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting 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 audit completed liaison service high risk care plans against local and national guidelines.

Methods

Sample comprised of a snapshot of all liaison patients currently on the case load on 14th December 2021. Electronic notes were reviewed to identify High Risk Care Plans (HRCPs) and audit completion against local guidance. Currently there is no national guidelines.

In addition staff from the liaison team were surveyed to consider their confidence in completing HRCPs in order to direct staff training. Acute hospital staff were also surveyed to ascertain positive and negative aspects of the current HRCPs, in order to suggest quality improvements ahead of the upcoming integration of new Digital notes system.

Results

Sample size 284. High Risk Care Plans completed 11, with an additional 2 required but not found in the notes.

Non pharmacological deescalation advice was specified in only 2/11.

Regular medication was documented in 5/11.

Specialist rapid tranquillisation medication advice in 8/11.

8/11 made reference to the local rapid tranquillisation policy, which was not made available in the notes.

Absconsion risk is documented in 8/11 and advised level of observation 10/11.

Conclusion

According to local guidelines High Risk Care Plans were appropriate for 4.6% of the liaison case load, but record was included in the notes for 3.9%. Of those completed mandatory fields including non pharmacological deescalation and rapid tranquillisation advice were not always complete. Reference to rapid tranquillisation policy not immediately available in the notes is largely unhelpful in an emergency.

Our local target is for 100% completion of appropriate high risk care plans and full documentation for each of the mandatory fields in the high risk care plan. Improved training and record keeping is required.

Staff survey suggested unfamiliarity with document and unclear boundaries between standard and patient specific information impaired utility of high risk care plans. We recommend familiarising staff with the document and encourage highlighted font for key information.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.