The aim is to find out if the physical health monitoring is adhered to in accordance with NICE guidelines in individuals with Intellectual disability who are on mood stabilisers and known to LD services.

We sought to explore if the physical health monitoring for prescribing mood stabilisers in a sample of people with ID was consistent with good practice guidelines.

We collected the data by reviewing the clinical records of individuals with LD who were under the care of mental health services in the CLDT- Wrexham and prescribed a mood stabiliser drug. We also contacted the patient's carers who came to outpatients and by calling the GP surgery and enquiring about the details. We also assessed the Welsh clinical portal in order to assess the blood tests.

Data were collected by trainee doctors in Psychiatry. This was a retrospective audit, looking at data from Learning Disability psychiatry caseload. We identified about 16 patients on mood stabilisers.

Physical health monitoring for prescribing mood stabilisers was almost consistent with good practice guidelines. This has shown that the majority of the monitoring has complied. There are few lacunae, such as Thyroid function not being monitored every 6 months for patients on Lithium, Serum Carbamazepine levels not being monitored as per guidelines with 1 patient not having blood done at all whilst on Carbamazepine. Moreover, the details are not readily available for the Consultant/ team when needed, thus making it very tedious for them to search/ contact the GP, etc.

Medications such as mood stabilisers can increase the risk further if the patient's physical health is not monitored regularly. This can lead to compromised quality of life for the patient and in some cases increased morbidity. Hence we have come up with a proforma that can be attached to patient case notes. This will serve as a record for us and prompt for physical monitoring. We will keep a database online with reminders set. This is to ensure a continuity of care for the patients.

To identify the number of adult inpatients prescribed HDAT across GMMH.

To establish whether guidelines for the prescribing and monitoring of HDAT are adhered to.

To consider the initiation of HDAT, evaluating whether prescriptions of HDAT are intentionally made by consultant psychiatrists and the MDT, or by rotational junior doctors.

High Dose Antipsychotic Therapy (HDAT) is defined by the Royal College of Psychiatrists as either: a total daily dose of a single antipsychotic which exceeds the upper limit stated in the BNF or A total daily dose of two or more antipsychotics which exceeds the BNF maximum as calculated by percentage.

The decision to prescribe HDAT should be made by a consultant psychiatrist and discussed with the patient and wider MDT. Clear documentation of this discussion, including the clinical indication, should be recorded within the case notes.

The use of HDAT comes with greater risk of physical health complications and requires regular monitoring of ECG, BMI and blood biochemistry. For patients detained under the Mental Health Act, consent and appropriate consultation with a SOAD should be sought for HDAT where the patient lacks capacity.

This audit investigates prescription of HDAT in the acute adult inpatient population within Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GMMH).

Six junior doctors were recruited to collect data across the 5 sites covering general adult inpatients within GMMH. Data were collected week beginning 21st January 2020. Data were collected from all 20 general adult inpatient wards within the trust. Medication cards for each patient on the electronic bed-state at 9am on the day of the audit were checked for HDAT prescription. Subsequently, data were collected from electronic notes of patients identified as being on HDAT. Data were collated and submitted to the audit lead for analysis.

31 patients were identified as being on HDAT, of those, 21 instances of HDAT were commenced during the patients MDT, although in only 2 of these cases was it noted that the medication prescribed would result in initiating HDAT. Of the remaining cases, 8 were prescribed by junior doctors and 2 were unclear. 15 out of 31 patients had an ECG within a month prior to commencing HDAT, of 24 patients on HDAT for longer than 3 months, only 5 had a repeat ECG within this time.

Guidelines are not closely adhered to, there is clear and necessary scope for improvement.

High Dose Antipsychotic Therapy (HDAT) is defined by the Royal College of Psychiatrists as either: “A total daily dose of a single antipsychotic which exceeds the upper limit stated in the BNF” or “A total daily dose of two or more antipsychotics which exceeds the BNF maximum as calculated by percentage.”

The use of HDAT is associated with significant risks to physical health and as such requires regular monitoring of various physiological parameters such as ECG, bloods and an assessment of cardiometabolic risk.

Following previous audits of HDAT prescribing practice in the inpatient setting within Greater Manchester Mental Health (GMMH) NHS FT, an audit of HDAT prescription in a general adult CMHT was conducted in Summer 2020, with the following aims:

To identify patients in the South Trafford CMHT who are prescribed HDAT.

To assess the prescription of HDAT against local guidance on the use of unlicensed medications.

To highlight good practice and areas for improvement in the prescription of HDAT.

All patients under the South Trafford CMHT in Summer 2020 were identified. Current prescriptions for antipsychotic medication were ascertained through review of electronic patient records. Those noted to be on HDAT were assessed against audit criteria derived from the GMMH Unlicensed Medicines Policy, previous audits of HDAT use and the RCPsych consensus report on HDAT prescription.

11 of 252 patients (4%) were identified as being on HDAT, of which eight were due to polypharmacy and three to high dose of a single antipsychotic. For 1/11 patients target symptoms and a risk/benefit rationale were documented. The mean length of time on HDAT was 6 years. 7/11 patients had either tried or considered clozapine in the past. 8/11 patients had not had an ECG within the last year, 4/11 had not had yearly U&E. 8/11 had regular mental health reviews.

Compliance with the audit standards was found to be highly variable. This may reflect many factors, including the length of time since commencing HDAT and the complex shared care arrangements currently in place in Trafford. Thus, the following recommendations have been made:

To start a register of all patients prescribed HDAT.

To review local guidelines and documentation to ensure they are up to date and can be effectively implemented in routine clinical practice.

To ensure that the responsibility for conducting yearly physical health checks for patients prescribed HDAT is communicated to the relevant parties.

Psychiatric polypharmacy refers to the prescription of two or more psychotropic medications to any one patient. This definition is purely quantitative and does not take into account whether such a prescription is detrimental, or unnecessary. In many cases, polypharmacy has been implemented in challenging illnesses, and some studies have shown that it can improve overall outcomes for certain patients. Evidence suggests that the prevalence of psychotropic polypharmacy is increasing, despite advances in psychosocial interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the current prevalence of polypharmacy among patients being treated by a community mental health team (CMHT), and the patient factors associated with its use.

We performed a cross-sectional study of all patients registered with a CMHT in a mixed urban/rural area on a single date. Case records were examined to determine the most recently prescribed drug regimen for each patient. Clinical chart diagnoses were recorded and each one independently verified by the team consultant using ICD-10. A number other sociodemographic variables were recorded. Using Microsoft Excel, we analysed the medications prescribed as well as rates and levels of polypharmacy based on multiple different patient characteristics.

Of the 245 patients, the mean age was 56.3 and 51.2% (n = 126) were female. Psychotropic polypharmacy was seen in 62% (n = 152) of patients. 33% (n = 82) of patients were on two psychotropic medications, and of this subset, a combination of one antipsychotic and one antidepressant was the most common drug regimen, seen in 16.7% (n = 41) of all patients. Polypharmacy was more prevalent in females, with 68% (n = 85) being on two or more psychotropics, in comparison to 58% of male patients. In relation to age, patients aged between 51 to 65 years had the highest prevalence of polypharmacy, at a rate of 71% (n = 49). Among all primary diagnoses, polypharmacy was most common in patients with affective disorders, with 80% (n = 40) of this patient cohort on two or more medications. Second to this was psychotic disorders, with polypharmacy seen in 65% (n = 62) of this group.

We found that psychotropic polypharmacy is highly prevalent in psychiatric patients being treated in a community setting. Certain demographics and patient factors, such as age, gender and psychiatric diagnosis influenced the rate of polypharmacy and certain drug combinations were more commonly prescribed than others.

Antipsychotic drugs frequently produce side-effects which represent common reasons for noncompliance. National guidelines, published by the National Institute of Care and Health Excellence, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines in Psychiatry, stipulate that patients prescribed antipsychotic drugs should be reviewed for side-effects on a weekly basis. This completed audit cycle, conducted on a mixed acute general adult psychiatric ward, examined whether patients were being assessed for side-effects of antipsychotic drugs using a standardised, self-reporting scale – the Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale (GASS) – as per national guidelines. As identification of side-effects is important in tailoring treatment to improve compliance, auditing monitoring practice was important in realising these outcomes.

Retrospectively, 26 inpatients were identified over a two-month period who were prescribed antipsychotic drugs. Their notes were reviewed for documented weekly GASS scores for the duration of antipsychotic treatment. Initial data demonstrated 0% compliance with guidelines, as no patients completed a weekly GASS. The intervention to improve compliance was a training session for ward staff on implementing the GASS. Data were subsequently collected prospectively over three weeks for 15 patients.

Seven patients completed the GASS weekly over three weeks, representing 47% compliance. Two patients (13%) completed two forms, three (20%) completed one form, and three (20%) completed no forms. There was a positive correlation between being offered the GASS and completing it – only one patient declined to complete it and was not offered it during the third week. Of the remaining 14 patients, if the GASS was offered there was 100% rate of completion. Staff did not offer the GASS to every patient each week, which accounted for most cases of non-completion. Some patients with pre-existing symptoms of physical illnesses included these on the GASS, which complicated interpretation. Future interventions could include further staff education, and involving a ward pharmacist to review results during medication reviews to optimise treatment compliance, as no medication changes resulted directly from patients completing the GASS.

Compliance with completing the GASS weekly improved following staff education, identifying the main factor affecting compliance as staff not offering the GASS to patients. Patients generally engaged well with side-effect monitoring, as most completed the GASS when offered. Further staff education may produce even greater compliance with guidelines, and involving pharmacy staff to review GASS scores and inform medication choices may lead to use of the GASS resulting in more tolerable and effective treatment plans.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, admissions to the Mildred Creek Unit (MCU), an Inpatient CAMHS Ward at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) changed.

The MCU is a 7–10 bed unit for children aged 7–15 years based on therapeutic milieu principles. The ward accepts patients via a planned national referral pathway, however, during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients were admitted as emergencies and consequently risk assessments were missed. Risk assessment is important in all admissions and as the MCU is not a locked unit, early risk assessment is particularly important.

We aimed to review whether risk assessment occurred within one working day of admission, as suggested by the ward risk assessment policy, and if this was not the case, our aim was to ensure that all risk assessments took place within this period via our audit interventions.

We collated data looking at the time between admission to GOSH and the date at which first risk assessments took place. We then put in place three interventions.

1. 1) Posters prompting doctors who were providing on-call liaison input to perform a risk assessment within one working day of admission.

2. 2) New junior doctors were provided with written and verbal information to emphasise the importance of early risk assessment.

3. 3) Guidelines also highlight that assessment of risk may need to be on-going. We therefore added a prompt section in the weekly ward round proforma with the aim of reducing the interval between risk assessments during admission.

We found these interventions significantly reduced delays in risk assessments. Prior to the audit's first cycle the average delay between admission to GOSH/MCU and a risk assessment was 2 weeks. After the interventions there were no patients whose risk assessment was delayed outside the next working day parameters.

This full cycle audit demonstrates the impact that prompts to clinical practice can make on patient care. It is important to recognise the need for flexible risk assessment with regular review, especially at times of clinical change. We hope that this continued trend for early risk assessment leads to improved clinical care and timely discussion of risk for all new CAMHS inpatients at GOSH.

Adherence to Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation (CNTW) Trust physical health monitoring guidelines for a caseload of community forensic psychiatry patients residing at Westbridge supported accommodation was audited to identify areas for improvement in practice. It was also our aim to highlight the delay in obtaining non-urgent investigations due to the need to minimize COVID infection transmission risks.

Data were collected from mental health and acute trust electronic records (Rio and ICE) of all patients taking antipsychotic medications currently care coordinated by the Westbridge Forensic Community Mental Health Team (FCMHT) between January 2020 and January 2021 (8 patients). Analysis of compliance with standards set by Trust guidelines was made.

In the chosen audit period, compliance with physical health monitoring standards was below target of 100% (80% compliance for bloods, 50% for ECG). Reasons for non-compliance were unexpected restrictions in service availability (e.g. temporary closure of walk-in ECG clinic) and one omission of sending a prolactin levels request.

The need for practice adaptation and advance planning by team in anticipation of potential delays was identified. Request for routine bloods and ECGs will now be made two months before the annual due dates to compensate for delays in the new process with plan to continue re-audit yearly.

To complete an audit cycle to evaluate and improve physical health monitoring practice for in-patients by incorporating small QI based projects between baseline audit and re-audit.

People with mental health illness are at increased risk of physical illness, morbidity and mortality compared with general population, mainly due to adverse effects of psychotropic medications, polypharmacy, poor lifestyle choices and socio-economic difficulties. It is important to recognise the need for active health promotion, including formal health checks for psychiatric in-patients.

Standards were obtained from NICE Guidelines, RCPsych Report on Physical Health in Mental Health and Cygnet Health Care's Physical health policy.

An Audit tool with simple checklist was generated from key areas of Cygnet's physical health policy. Physical Health Files of 24 patients from Female Rehabilitation Ward and 28 patients from Male Rehabilitation Ward were audited in the initial audit cycle.

Checklist included physical health examination within 24 hours of admission, Annual Health Improvement Profile (HIP), Monthly physical health reviews (including observations and weights), High Dose Antipsychotics Monitoring, Bloods and ECG records. After the initial baseline audit in Apr., 2019, some of the Quality Improvement (QI) approaches (4 PDSA cycles, driver diagrams, model for improvement) were used before conducting the re-audit in Oct., 2019.

The baseline audit in Apr., 2019 showed 98% compliance with physical assessment within 24 hours of admission, however, there was a significant gap in the monthly physical health reviews (62%), Annual HIP (30%), High-dose antipsychotic monitoring (10%) and ECG/Bloods for antipsychotic monitoring (64%) as per guidelines. 10 Female and 12 male patients had regularly refused obs, weight checks and physical health monitoring.

The re-audit showed an overall improvement of 92% in compliance, with increased High-dose antipsychotic monitoring (100%), Monthly physical health clinics (88%), Annual HIP (75%), Annual antipsychotic monitoring/bloods/ECG(95%).

Interventions, using QI approaches, between baseline and re-audit, included MDT discussion around strategies to improve patients’ engagement with monthly physical health clinics with Specialty doctor, adding to care plan points, timescales and reminders in doctors’ diaries for next bloods and ECGs due, MDT and patients’ health education and a designated support staff for physical obs and maintaining physical health files. This helped in providing a framework to test recommended changes and evolve design based on repeated date collection between cycles.

The QI Interventions helped in implementation of a more holistic approach towards assessments due to which, the re-audit demonstrated a sustained improvement in compliance with all aspects of physical health monitoring.

To re-audit seclusion practices within a Tier 4 Adolescent PICU provision in London, originally audited in 2018. To ensure restrictive practices are only used in exceptional circumstances for short term risk management. To evaluate whether practice has improved following introduction of incidence reduction strategies and identify any further areas of development.

This Tier 4 Adolescent PICU provides treatment of up to 16 high risk and unwell adolescents with severe and enduring mental health illnesses. Seclusion should be a short term risk management strategy with subsequent review of the care plan and treatment. It should be used for the shortest time possible. Following the audit in 2018, three strategies were implemented to reduce restrictive practice: (1) daily nursing safety huddles, (2) weekly Incidence Reduction meetings, and (3) ongoing QI project on restrictive practice.

Data were collected from all patients requiring seclusion between January and December 2019 (n = 18), which included 46 incidents. Data were collected from RiO computer records, extracting details of patient demographics, reasons and context of seclusion, risk reduction steps prior, length of seclusion, monitoring, and modifications to care plans.

Average length of stay in seclusion was 20h, reduced from 30h previously. Over half of patients requiring seclusion had symptoms of psychosis, consistent with the original audit. Majority of incidents involved assault to staff (80.4%) as indication for seclusion, compared to 50% previously. In 58.7% of cases, verbal de-escalation was followed by further risk reduction with oral medication. Overall, rapid tranquillisation was required in 45.7% of incidents. Restraint was used in 84.8% of incidents, always in combination with at least one other management strategy.

Just under half of seclusions were monitored and documented in line with Trust guidelines, however, there was significant improvement in documentation of consultant reviews within 24h from under 70% to over 90%. Care plan modification rates improved from 63% to over 95%.

Majority of seclusion incidents were due to violent acts by young people presenting with psychotic features/disorder. This reflects the complex nature of psychosis and the substantial need for research to reduce restrictive practice in such cases.

Ongoing review of data relating to seclusion will continue to inform and improve practice. This re-audit demonstrates improvement in various areas after implementation of strategies to reduce restrictive practice – importantly, average time in seclusion, documentation of 24 hour consultant reviews and focus on non-pharmacological risk reduction approaches in care plan modifications.

To assess the use of a piloted shorter version of the local Checklist for Antipsychotic Initiation and Review (CAIR) form by an Older Persons Community Mental Health Team (OPCMHT), and to assess whether the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline on use of antipsychotics for the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) is being adhered to.

Retrospective audit analysing notes of all patients currently open to the OPCMHT that are prescribed an antipsychotic medication for the management of BPSD. Patients with a diagnosis of any subtype of dementia and prescribed any antipsychotic were included. Data collected from paper notes using an audit proforma.

The total number of patients was 11. The most common diagnosis was Alzheimer's disease (45%), followed by mixed type dementia (36%), vascular dementia (9%) and Lewy Body dementia (9%). The majority of the patients reside in their own home (64%) whilst the remaining 36% reside in a residential home for the elderly and mentally infirm. The CAIR form was present in 73% of the patient's notes, however only 37% had the new, piloted, shorter version of the CAIR form. Of the CAIR forms present, only 63% were fully completed. There was documented evidence that 100% of patients had an assessment of underlying causes of their challenging behaviour; that non-pharmacological interventions were tried first; and that target symptoms were identified. There was evidence of a discussion with the patient or carer about the risks and benefits of antipsychotic use for all patients, however the details of the discussion was often vague. All patients had a review of the antipsychotic medication within the last three months.

There was evidence that pre-prescribing assessments are being undertaken for all patients. There needs to be clearer documentation of the discussions had with patients and carers about the risks and benefits of using antipsychotic medications for management of BPSD. A teaching session was held at the team meeting to highlight the risks and benefits. The team will ensure that they provide a health board approved leaflet to each patient and carer following their discussion. Only 73% of the patients had a CAIR form in their notes and the team favour the original version. The team will revert back to using the original version of the CAIR form as it has more space allocated to document ongoing reviews. We will re-audit in 6 months time.

Are Junior Trainee, Medical Seclusion Reviews complaint with MHA COP Criteria?

Are we seeing newly secluded patients on time?

Are we documenting these reviews in clinical notes?

Do documented reviews meet criteria stated by the MHA COP 26.133?

Are we informing Higher Trainees of the need for MDT reviews?

Seclusion is an important aspect of inpatient care. MHA COP Chapter 26 provides guidance for documenting seclusion reviews, ensuring safeguards are in place to protect patient's safety and human rights. Secluded patients require a medical review within 1 hour, and four hourly thereafter, until a higher trainee or Consultant undertake an MDT Review. In our Trust, LYPFT, trainees undertake these reviews. There is noted discrepancy in seclusion review documentation. This audit identifies our compliance with time limits, and whether documentation meets the required criteria in the MHA Code of Practice

Our Sample includes all Out-of-Hour Junior Trainee Medical Seclusion Reviews between 01/01/20 and 01/04/20 at LYPFT. Seclusions were identified from on call logs, and clinical notes were reviewed for a documented seclusion review. The date and time of seclusion are recorded, whether a 1 or 4 hourly review, and the time of review. We recorded any mention of: physical health; mental state; observation levels; recent medication; medication side effects; risk to others; risk to self and the need for ongoing seclusion.

56 episodes of seclusion were identified; all 56 had a documented medical seclusion review. 49 reviews were on time, 4 were late with a documented reason, and 3 were late without. There was documentation of the Higher Trainee being informed in 53 reviews.

No seclusion reviews mentioned all MHA COP criteria. We more frequently mentioned patients’ physical health (51), psychiatric health (52) and need for seclusion (54). 46 seclusion reviews mentioned risk of harm to others; only 3 mentioned risk of self-harm. 25 seclusion reviews mentioned medication, and 5 mentioned review for side effects. 5 seclusion reviews mentioned observation levels.

Our Junior Doctor Seclusion Reviews were not meeting the MHA Code of Practice Criteria, and we believe this to largely be due to lack of awareness of the standards. As such, results have been disseminated to Junior trainees in weekly teaching. We created a medical seclusion review template, adopted by the Trust, to ensure documentation compliance with the MHA COP. Junior doctor inductions now include a presentation regarding Seclusion, the reviews and documentation. We will re-audit in 12 months.

The main aim of this study was to investigate whether the EIT access and waiting time standard (>60% of people experiencing first episode psychosis (FEP) are treated with a NICE-approved care package within two weeks of referral) was being met within Liverpool EIT.

We also wanted to understand the pathway to treatment within EIT services, identify delays in the process of triage/assessment/MDT/medical review and implement changes to reduce delays.

This study was a retrospective cross-sectional audit of all patients accepted on to the FEP pathway following MDT discussion in the Liverpool EIT Teams across May and June 2020.

Case notes were analysed for delays in referral, engagement with assessment and care-coordinators, as well as prescriber review offering medication. The data were collated and analysed before implementing changes.

40 patients presented as FEP in May and June 2020, 6 were excluded due to an extended inpatient stay.

Within the remaining patient cohort (n = 34), 64.7% of patients were engaged with a care package within 14 days. Only 14.7% of patients received an offer of medication within 14 days, the mean time to be offered medication was 39 days.

26% of patients first contact within MerseyCare Trust was with EIT, 74% presented elsewhere. 24% instead presented to liaison psychiatry from A&E departments, 18% to the single point of access team, 9% to criminal justice liaison team (CJLT) and 9% to North West Ambulance Service triage car.

29% of referrals came from the community (GP and counselling services), 15% from CRHT (crisis resolution and home treatment team), 14% from CJLT, 12% from urgent care team, 9% from liaison psychiatry.

The Access and Waiting time standard was met. However, this study showed that patients were not being referred to EIT at first point of contact. This study shows 26% of service users first presented to liaison psychiatry, yet only 1/3 of those were immediately referred to EIT, the remainder being later referred by other services e.g. CRHT.

In addition to referral delays, lack of medical practitioner availability caused significant delays in arranging medical reviews, delaying patients access to medication.

The changes implemented to address these issues included educating MerseyCare services in the early recognition of psychosis to increase early referral. Non-medical prescribers’ roles were developed to perform initial medical reviews in addition to doctors, allowing patients earlier medication access. This allowed ‘urgent slots’ to be developed, time set aside for emergencies enabling prompt review of urgent cases.

To compare Lithium prescribing practices in a Psychiatry of Old Age (POA) Service in the North-West of Ireland among adults aged 65 years and over with best practice guidelines.

Review of the literature informed development of audit standards for Lithium prescribing. These included National Institute for Clinical Excellent (NICE) 2014 guidelines, The British National Formulary (2019) and Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines (2018). Data were collected retrospectively, using an audit-specific data collection tool, from clinical files of POA team caseload, aged 65 years or more and prescribed Lithium over the past one year.

At the time of the audit in February 2020, 18 patients were prescribed lithium, 67% female, average age 74.6 years. Of those prescribed Lithium; 50% (n = 9) had a depression diagnosis, 44% (n = 8) had bipolar affective disorder (BPAD) and 6% (n = 1) had schizoaffective disorder.

78% (n = 14) of patients were on track to meet, or had already met, the NICE standard of 3-monthly serum lithium level. Lithium levels were checked on average 4.5 times in past one year, average lithium level was 0.61mmol/L across the group and 39% (n = 7) had lithium level within recommended therapeutic range (0.6-0.8mmol/L).

83% (n = 15) of patients met the NICE standards of 3 monthly renal tests, thyroid function test was performed in 89% (n = 16) and at least one serum calcium level was documented in 63% (n = 15). Taking into consideration most recent blood test results, 100% (n = 18) had abnormal renal function, 78% (n = 7) had abnormal thyroid function and 60% (n = 9) had abnormal serum calcium.

Half (n = 9) were initiated on lithium by POA service and of these, 56% (n = 5) had documented renal impairment prior to initiation. Of patients on long term lithium therapy at time of referral (n = 9), almost half (n = 4) had a documented history of lithium toxicity.

The results of this audit highlight room for improvement in lithium monitoring of older adults attending POA service. Furthermore, all patients prescribed lithium had impaired renal function, half had abnormal calcium and two fifths had abnormal thyroid function. This is an important finding given the associations between those admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and comorbid kidney disease and increased risk of inpatient death.

Our findings highlight the need for three monthly renal function monitoring in older adults prescribed lithium given the additive adverse effects of increasing age and lithium on the kidney. Close working with specialised renal services to provide timely advice on renal management for those with renal impairment prescribed lithium is important to minimise adverse patient outcomes.

The local audit aimed at measuring awareness of research and development policies and implementation of local and national standards. Our findings generated a quality improvement project with two main objectives: first, improving patient approach and recruitment in research and second, improving trainee satisfaction within our trust.

A cohort of new inpatient admissions was identified over a period of 4 weeks, between October 2019 and November 2019, on the two psychiatric wards at the Briary Wing, Harrogate District Hospital. Based on local and national standards, we designed and developed a qualitative (questionnaire) and quantitative (audit tool) approach that was aimed at both staff and patients. Our steps included: assessing awareness and implementation of standards, a retrospective collection of data on the wards, and analysis of the data in Microsoft Excel.

Only one ward implemented the local guidance from which we identified a sample of 14 consecutive new admissions that were currently present on the ward and were able to answer our questions. 13 of those patients were noted as ‘approached’ on our visual board from which only 3 patients remembered reading a leaflet about research options in the admission pack, however, they have not been verbally informed. There was no process in place to assure the re-approaching of initially unwell patients or to follow up on discharge for those interested. Documentation was available in only 9 of the cases and was nonspecific: ‘admission pack done’.

The awareness and understanding of Research and Development policies are poor and they are difficult to apply in practice in a busy inpatient environment without a clear process in place. This results in patients missing the opportunity to learn and understand more about research or to participate in ongoing studies. Quality improvement work needs to be done to improve patient recruitment in research in inpatient settings. Simple flow charts and stepwise processes as exemplified by our action plan have the potential to improve service quality, as well as patient and trainee satisfaction.

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.

Multi-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.

Of 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.

Lower HDAT was achieved post intervention. Results, whilst positive, indicate the need for ongoing audit to maintain best standards.

To review available standards for physical health monitoring in people taking clozapine To audit current practice against standards To identify changes in practice and facilitate a re-audit to assess impact of any changes

Standard: CG178 Psychosis and Schizophrenia in Adults: Prevention and Management – NICE, February 2014

Target:100%

Exceptions: None

Sample: The original audit included all 58 patients from the Worcester clozapine clinic, as per October 2018. The re-audit reviewed a random sample of all patients attending the clozapine clinics in Worcester, Kidderminster and Redditch, as part of Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, as per October 2019. A total of 66 patients were selected.

Data Source: Carenotes and ICE

Areas of good practice:

Monitoring of HbA1c and FBC remains good

There has been an improvement in monitoring alcohol use, substance misuse and side effects

Areas requiring improvement:

There continues to be limited recording of respiratory rate

There has been a decline in recording temperature, BMI and concomitant therapies

Potential reasoning for missing data includes:

Staff not knowing the monitoring requirements, which is more likely to be an issue when staff members running the clinics change frequently

Monitoring being completed but not documented

Patients’ refusal of monitoring

Data being recorded in alternative locations including general practice, without communication between services

Patients moving between teams or having inpatient stays may disrupt monitoring regime

LIMITATIONS

This audit assumes all patients involved to be on a stable dose of clozapine with routine monitoring

Some patients may have been transferred between teams or inpatients during the period of data collection

There is no scope to record when patients refuse monitoring

We may not have access to all notes such as those from general practice for data collection

RECOMMENDATIONS

Induction programme for junior doctors to include education on clozapine monitoring

Training for staff involved in clozapine clinics to ensure better understanding of monitoring requirements

Procurement of ECG machines for each site and relevant training for nursing and medical staff

Collaboration with GPs for shared data

Re-audit in 1 year

To assess physical health in patients under the Early Intervention Service, whom are prescribed antipsychotics.

To consider whether further intervention needs to be provided or promoted to improve physical health in this group.

Assessment of carenotes database for all 63 patients on EIS caseload prescribed antipsychotics.

Out of 47 patients studied, 20 were non-smokers at baseline. 25% of them ended up becoming smokers by the end of the study time.

Out of 47 patients studied 28 were non-drinkers at baseline. 32% of them ended up engaging in alcohol by the end of the study time.

Out of 47 patients studied, 38 patients had data available to record weight changes per year. Out of the 38 patients, 27 of them had positive weight change; average weight change was + 6.38 kg per year. The highest weight gain was 38.4 kg, the highest weight lost was 47.3 kg.

Out of 47 patients studied, 35 patients had data available to record BMI changes. Out of the 35 patients, 27 of them had positive BMI increases, average BMI change was + 2.68. The highest BMI increase was 12.84. The highest BMI decrease was 8.24.

Out of 47 patients studied, 11 patients had data available to record random glucose level changes. Out of the 11 patients, 7 of them had increased glucose levels, average glucose change were + 0.5mmol/l. The highest increase in glucose was 3.9mmol/l and the highest drop in glucose was 2.6mmol/l.

Out of 47 patients studied, 19 patients had data available to record HbA1c levels. Out of the 19 patients, 10 of them had increased HbA1c levels, with the average change being + 0.31 mmol/mol. The highest increase in HbA1c levels was 5 mmol/mol and the highest drop in HbA1c levels was 3 mmol/mol.

Out of 47 patients studied, 30 patients had data available to record cholesterol changes. Out of the 30 patients, 21 of them had increased cholesterol levels, with the average change being + 0.09mmol/l. The highest increase in cholesterol was 1.7mmol/l and the highest drop in cholesterol levels was 2.6.

Taken together, we show that anti-psychotic use has a negative effect on physical health parameters such as weight gain, BMI increase, HbA1c levels and cholesterol levels. This increases the patient's risk of developing diabetes/metabolic syndrome in the future.

Re-audit.

To identify the prevalence of delirium and/or dementia on complex medicine wards.

To assess the use non-pharmacological prevention and management options in these patients.

Delirium, a common hospital syndrome, is often multi-factorial. So, the management needs not only treating a reversible cause but also minimising the factors that could increase the risk of developing delirium, or worsen its course.

The Scottish-Intercollegiate-Guidelines-Network (SIGN) and National-Institute-for-Health-and-Care-Excellence (NICE) guidelines outline non-pharmacological factors to reduce the risk of developing delirium, and for its management once established.

These factors include orientation, ensuring patients have their glasses and hearing aids, promoting sleep hygiene, maintaining optimal hydration and nutrition, early mobilisation, appropriate lighting and providing cognitively stimulating activities.

SIGN, NICE and local guidelines were used to develop a checklist of core non-pharmacological factors that minimise the risk of developing delirium and help in its management. Adherence to recommendations from these guidelines was thus evaluated in 4 Complex Medical Units of The John-Radcliffe Hospital (Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust), cross sectionally. The data were collected by interviewing nursing staff on the wards, assessing the ward environment, reviewing nursing charts and electronic patient records.

There were 57 patients aged >65 years across all four wards, with average percentages of delirium and dementia patients being 46% and 34%, respectively. Nurses were unsure about their patients having hearing or visual aids in 41% and 29%, respectively. On all four wards there was no clear signage, no digital clock, no calendar, and earplugs were not offered. Overall, the use of non-pharmacological recommendations was sub-optimal across a number of items. After a month, when the notes were reviewed, it was found that 18 out of those 57 patients had passed away (32%) and the average length of stay for delirium/dementia patients was way more than the other patients during that admission.

We found high rates of delirium and dementia and a lack of consistent use of recommended non-pharmacological strategies for their management. Better adherence to these could help shorten length of stay and improve patient outcomes.

Recommendations for patients with/at risk of delirium:

• – Bedside board for each patient with the name of the ward/hospital, picture of the named nurse.

• – Ensuring visible clock/calendar.

• – Non-pharmacological delirium management checklist to be added to the daily nursing notes.

• – Appropriate lighting in the bays.

• – Offer earplugs if not sleeping at night.

COVID-19 has a demonstratable impact on the population's mental health and is associated with an increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, including patients experiencing psychotic presentations. The aim of this study was to explore whether referral rates within a county-wide Early Intervention (EI) service changed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The EI service provides NICE approved treatments and support for patients experiencing a First Episode Psychosis (FEP).

Data were collected from all referrals to the EI service between March–December 2019 and March–December 2020. Clinical notes were reviewed to ascertain whether the referred patient was assessed and if they were subsequently accepted on to the team's caseload.

During the March–December 2019 period 147 referrals were made to the EI service, with 66 patients being accepted for treatment by the service (44.9% of referrals). In March–December 2020, 127 referrals were made, a 13.6% reduction compared to the same period in 2019, however 70 referrals were accepted (55.1% of referrals).

Whilst the overall referrals declined during the COVID-19 period, there were notable increases in both April and August 2020, by 25.0% and 70.0% respectively.

Although overall referrals to the EI service reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic compared similarly to the previous year, there was a noteworthy increase in the proportion of patients accepted onto the team's caseload.

Potential explanations for this finding include the possibility of an increased incidence of first episode psychosis during this period, or that restrictions in accessing primary care and secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic reduced the number of patients being referred whose symptoms were not representative of First Episode Psychosis (FEP).

This study highlights that mental health services, such as EI teams, have experienced a persistent level of need over the past year and that ongoing investment in psychiatric services is warranted to meet this sustained requirement for support and interventions.

This audit covered 3 hospitals in Glasgow City which has 1221 beds providing inpatient healthcare for the north east region of the city. To improve the referral process,we aimed to verify adherence to existing referral pathway and adequacy of information provided by referrals. Referral characteristics including referral indication, intervention and outcomes were accounted for to identify area interest that may help improve the referral process.

Our referral pathway involves completion of a Microsoft Word referral template subsequently sent electronically to an internal electronic mail.

Referrals in a 2 month period were included in the audit. Each referral was reviewed for adherence to the referral template, adequacy of provided information and referral indications. Intervention in the form of staff input, Mental Health Act status, psychotropic medication prescribed and given diagnosis was ascertained via staff electronic entry records.

139 referrals were included. 114 referrals (82%) adhered to the referral template. 72 referrals (52%) contained adequate information. Common referral indications were delirium (23%), agitation (20%), low mood (18%) and cognitive decline queries (18%). Staff input ranged from psychiatrist input (46%), liaison nurses (40%), clinical psychology (1%) and shared input (13%). 16 referrals (12%) resulted in subsequent detention under the Mental Health Act. Psychotropic medications prior to liaison assessment included antidepressants (49%), antipsychotics (29%) and benzodiazepines (16%). Liaison assessment resulted in increase use of antipsychotic (55%) and reduction of antidepressants (29%) and benzodiazepines (10%), Delirium (34%), dementia (21%), Mood & Anxiety related disorders (18%) and Query of Cognitive Impairment (14%) were recorded as the most discussed diagnosis.

Referrals with inadequate details affect the service's ability to efficiently assess for clinical urgency and matching of appropriate interventions to suit clinical needs. The percentage difference in delirium between referral indication and diagnosis highlights that delirium can be under-recognised, resulting in potentially delayed treatment. Identifying common given diagnosis and differences in psychotropic medication prescribing pattern points to the need for training and support of acute medical ward staff in utilising therapeutics for management of acute mental health disorder.

A pending electronic referral pathway with mandatory entries and linked relevant online resources can encourage early recognition of acute mental health disorder and prompt early management including the use of appropriate therapeutics. An additional feature allowing direct referrals by acute ward staff to community mental health team would support continuity of care for discharged patients needing ongoing mental health assessment.