Sexual dysfunction should be enquired about as a symptom of mental health disorders and as side effects of commonly used psychotropic drugs. We audited against NICE guidelines the record of sexual dysfunction discussion at initial assessment and follow-up by the community mental health recovery service (CMHRS).

Research reports that sexual dysfunction occurs more often in individuals with serious mental illnesses including depression and schizophrenia. Sexual dysfunction is also a reported side effect of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications. NICE guidelines recommend assessment of biological symptoms of mental health disorders and discussion of potential side effects of treatments being considered prior to initiation and at follow-up.

Our sample consisted of 71 patients, all new patient assessments from referrals made to CMHRS between January 1st and March 31st 2019.

We reviewed all initial assessment and follow-up electronic notes and any correspondence generated from these meetings.

Our results showed that no record was made of sexual dysfunction as present or absent by health care professionals (HCPs) completing initial assessment or follow-up.

We surveyed the HCPs from the team and observed a high level of confidence in discussing sexual dysfunction and high self report of this discussion being conducted.

Our audit results show no records of the discussion of sexual dysfunction, we held to the principal that in absence of record the discussion did not take place. Our survey results suggested that HCPs were confident they do assess for sexual dysfunction. We wondered, therefore, if HCPs would be less likely to make record in the event that symptoms are denied, recognizing that the list of potential symptoms and side effects is extensive and documentation of all negative results would be time consuming.

Our audit results may show then, that sexual dysfunction is not present in any of the sample; however this would contrast to research findings of higher than average rates of sexual dysfunction in groups with serious mental illness and those using antidepressants or antipsychotics.

We propose further assessment is needed for the disparity between our and recognised rates of sexual dysfunction.

We propose the standard that recording ‘absence of biological symptoms’ of mental health disorders or recorded supply of medicine information leaflets are adequate record. We also made suggestions for training and recording to assist HCPs initial assessment.

In the UK, people with severe mental illness at a greater risk of poor physical health and have higher premature mortality than the general population, highlighting the importance of responding to physical health problems among patients suffering from psychiatric conditions. However, training for staff on inpatient psychiatric units to meet patients’ physical health needs is sometimes overlooked and has not always been effective.

According to NICE Clinical Guideline 25 (2005) and NPSA Rapid Response Report (2008/RRR010), staff on any psychiatric inpatient setting must be capable of monitoring, measurement, and interpretation of vital signs. They must have both adequate information and skills to identify signs indicating worsening of patients’ health and respond effectively to severely ill patients.

Hence, we aim to re-audit the results of a similar audit carried out in 2016 to review the level of medical emergency training (in terms of life support training) of clinical staff across the inpatient psychiatric wards at our local hospital - Stepping Hill Hospital- in Stockport.

Our hypothesis is that there will be a gap in meeting the required standards for training.

A questionnaire including 6 questions (role of the staff member, level of their life support training, when was their training last updated, whether they know the location of the crash trolley, whether they know the local hospital emergency number and whether they should resuscitate the patient if their training is out of date) was given to staff on acute inpatient psychiatric units in Stepping Hill Hospital.

The sample included 49 staff members from all the 3 wards included in the audit. The level of training of nursing staff on the 3 wards was meeting standards except for nursing staff who were new to the wards or coming back to work from prolonged leaves. There was also a gap identified in the level of training of other staff members on the ward as well as on the remaining standards measured by the audit.

A gap was identified in meeting the required standards of training on the inpatient psychiatric units. Reasons identified for this gap are mainly due to the fact that new or bank staff are asked to cover the wards without providing them with appropriate training and without orientating them about the location of different equipments and policies on the ward.

Quetiapine is an atypical anti-psychotic medication licensed for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and adjunctive use in major depressive disorder. It's off-label use in low doses is increasing, possibly due to its sedative qualities, tolerability, low risk of extrapyramidal symptoms and to limit the unnecessary use of benzodiazepines. However, previous research highlights the risk of metabolic consequences even in low doses. Our aim is to establish the prescribing patterns and off-label use of quetiapine within a complete comminity mental health team population (CMHT).

The GR1 CMHT provides care to a population of 25,000 people in a mixed urban and rural area. Multi-disciplinary case notes for all registered patients were reviewed for a one-year period. A database was created to include sociodemographic details, diagnosis, and medication. The proportion of patients prescribed quetiapine was identified and the dosage divided into multiple increments. The team's consultant reviewed and verified all ICD-10 diagnoses. Quetiapine dose by diagnosis was examined using descriptive statistics.

Of 246 registered patients, 62 (25% of CMHT caseload) were prescribed Quetiapine. Quetiapine was prescribed across a range of disorders including psychotic 17 (27%), mood 18 (29%), anxiety 14 (22 %), personality disorders 11 (18%) and others 2 (3%). Doses spanned between 25 mg – 800 mg daily. 19 patients (31%) were prescribed less than 25 mg, 20 patients (32%) between 25 mg and 100 mg and 23 patients (37%) above 100 mg. In psychotic and mood disorders, dosage varied widely between the low and high range. Furthermore, of the psychotic disorders, 11 (65%) were prescribed a second antipsychotic medication. For diagnoses in which the prescribing indication was clearly off-label, the dosages were predominantly low (100 mg or less).

Quetiapine was commonly prescribed in our patient population. Its frequent off-label use in low doses suggests that its prescription was for its additional qualities. Our findings highlight the importance of assessing the risk-benefit profile for every patient given the potential side effects, involving patients in the consultation of its off-label use and appropriate monitoring.

This audit aims to evaluate the compliance with the WHO surgical safety checklist during the electroconvulsive therapy treatment in ECT clinic at Greater Manchester Mental Health Bolton Directorate. The audit is based on WHO surgical safety checklist modified for ECT including National Patient Safety Agency advice. The goal is to improve the compliance and in turn improve clinical outcomes.

The WHO surgical safety checklist (modified for Electroconvulsive therapy including NPSA advice) is devised to promote patient safety, improve teamwork, reduce errors/adverse events and improve overall quality of care. An audit was completed regarding the compliance with the safety checklist at the Bolton ECT clinic and to assess how this could be improved.

Following approval from the clinical audit department, GMMH NHS Foundation Trust, 20 checklists from randomly selected patient ECT files were included in this audit. We looked at whether the checklists were completed, signed and dated. Our current WHO surgical safety checklist is as per the Electroconvulsive therapy accreditation service standards.

A total of 20 WHO surgical safety checklists were reviewed. 95% of the checklists (19/20) were completed by the duty Psychiatrist. 1 form was not completed. 25% (5/20) were not signed rendering them invalid. A total of 75% checklists were complete and valid. Checklists were present in all the case notes.

Compliance with the WHO surgical safety checklist during the electroconvulsive therapy treatment can be challenging due to various reasons ranging from time pressure to difficult clinical situation. This audit has highlighted that the overall compliance with the set standards (100% completion) was not achieved. A repeat audit will be important to further improve the compliance and overall clinical outcome.

This Audit aims to review prescribing practice concerning Valproate in early intervention services.

The audit was undertaken across four EI hubs in Birmingham. Audit standards were derived from POMH-UK (Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health) QIP. Drug cards of the entire EIS caseload in November 2020 were reviewed to identify patients on any preparation of Valproate. A total of 31 patients were identified. Electronic notes of all the patients on Valproate were reviewed to compare prescribing practices against national standards.

A total of 31 patients were prescribed sodium Valproate. All these patients had target symptoms documented in their notes. Reason for starting Valproate was mostly documented as agitation and aggression rather than elation in the mood. In was unclear if patients had full physical health checked before starting Valprotae as in majority (94%) valproate was commenced as an inpatient. Not all cases had detailed inpatient discharge notes making it difficult to fully understand the rationale for starting Valproate.

55% of the patients were on an off-license valproate preparation. Where used off-license majority (93%)of these patients had no documentation of the rationale behind off-license use. Similarly, in most cases (93%)there was no evidence of off-license use being discussed with the patients. Most patients had received adequate monitoring in the community (74%) although there was limited documentation of screening for common side effects. Prescribers were noted to be using Semi-sodium Valproate and Sodium Valproate interchangeably despite these not being bioequivalent.

We recommend that

1. 1. Periodic treatment reviews should document the assessment of response and screening for side effects.

2. 2. Where used clinician should clearly discuss and document the off-license use with patients. 500 mg Semi-sodium valproate (Depakote) is approximately equivalent to 433 mg Sodium Valproate (Epilim). If switching from Semi-sodium Valproate to Sodium Valproate, a slightly higher (approximately 10%) dose of Sodium Valproate should be used.

3. 3. Unless clear evidence of affective illness is identified, the ongoing need for Valproate should be regularly reviewed by the clinicians.

Driving is complex, requiring adequate: attention and concentration, memory, insight and understanding, judgement, planning and the ability to self-monitor1. Psychiatric illness, and associated medications, may affect patients’ ability to drive safely. The DVLA is responsible for determining individuals’ safety to drive and produces guidance specific to psychiatric disorders. Patients must comply with relevant guidance and clinicians must determine patients’ driving status and offer appropriate advice about medications and any need to inform the DVLA. This audit aimed to determine the compliance with DVLA guidance on a single inpatient psychiatric ward within Merseycare NHS Foundation Trust, UK.

A retrospective review of electronic patient records was completed. Clerical staff identified all patients admitted to Windsor House from 1/8/20–30/11/20 (n = 42). Data relating to driving status and driving advice were collected onto individual patient audit proformas, and uploaded to the online Audit Management and Tracking (AMaT) system.

100% of patients had diagnoses that would require the DVLA to be informed and 100% were prescribed medication with potential side effects that could impair ones’ ability to drive safely such as dizziness, drowsiness or impaired concentration2. Driving status was only documented for 12 patients (29%) and type of vehicle driven for only 6 patients (1 of whom had an HGV licence).

Discussion of DVLA guidance within the last 3/12 by the mental health team was documented in 17% patients. Of these patients, appropriate driving advice was given to 86%. All patients advised to cease driving were willing to. No patients were advised about side effects of medications on driving. No notes evidenced if the DVLA had been informed of patients’ admission, diagnosis or medication regimes.

Discussing diving status and DVLA advice with psychiatric patients is important but may not always happen in inpatient settings, despite most patients having a relevant diagnosis. Failure to determine driving status may mean some patients are not being given appropriate guidance as required. Counselling on medication side effects in relation to driving should be encouraged as the majority of patients are taking prescribed medication that can potentially impair driving. Recommendations to improve compliance include: adding “driving status” to admission clerking and ward review proformas, educating staff to actively discuss driving with inpatients and create discharge checklists which prompt discussing driving status, medications and driving advice, and to re-audit in 6 months time.

The aim of this audit was to investigate whether sufficient Prolactin monitoring was completed in a patient sample in the Torfaen area of Aneurin Bevan University Health Board. This audit targetted patients an oral or intra-muscular formulation of Risperidone in the year 2018 with the hypothesis that Prolactin monitoring is done less frequently than recommended.

Risperidone is the anti-psychotic drug most frequently associated with hyperprolactinemia which is often asymptomatic but can present with symptoms of oligomenorrhea, amenorrhea, galactorrhea, decreased libido, infertility, and decreased bone mass in women. Men with hyperprolactinemia may present with erectile dysfunction, decreased libido, infertility, gynecomastia, decreased bone mass, and rarely galactorrhea. The BNF advises monitoring of Prolactin at baseline, after 6 months, and then annually.

Retrospective review of 150 patients’ clinical letters to identify if they are on the above medications, using the local digital records system EPEX. Emails were also sent to community psychiatric nurses asking them if they could highlight any patients they were caseholding on the above medication. Depot clinic lists were also examined. Patients identified as being on the above medication had their blood tests reviewed on the online system Clinical Workstation (CWS) to determine whether they had their Prolactin level tested. A single spot sample of all patients on Talygarn ward in January 2019 was also included.

1. 28 Risperidone

2. 23 of 28 never had any Prolactin measurements

3. 2 of 28 patients had the appropriate level of monitoring done for the year of 2018

a. One patient complained of Galacotorrhea

b. Another patient had baseline done while on the ward and isn't due for any further monitoring at the time of writing.

The above results identify that Prolactin monitoring is not being routinely completed for patients on the studied medication at an acceptable compliance level. Limitations around utitlity of prolactin monitoring may be the contributing factors; eg. Prolactin levels or medication dose may not be positively associated with adverse effects.. Further efforts were made to highlight the importance of baseline prolactin monitoring, as well as including a baseline Prolactin as an admission blood test for patients presenting with psychotic symptoms or on an anti-psychotic. A complete audit of metabolic monitoring and Prolactin levels for all patients on anti-psychotics would be an appropriate next step.

Co-existing mental illness and substance misuse is highly prevalent within the UK, with approximately 40% of people diagnosed with psychosis having a history of substance misuse. However, in Redbridge we currently do not have access to a dual diagnosis team or integrated care.

This audit aims to assess the health and social implications of fragmented care, plus the effectiveness of mental health services in assessing patients with dual diagnosis and referring to specialist misuse teams. We used the NICE guidelines on co-existing severe mental illness and substance misuse [CG120] to help guide our recommendations.

We identified 50 out of 359 patients within our service who were admitted to psychiatric hospital over a one year period (between 01/11/2019- 01/11/2020).

We looked at medication compliance, use of the Mental Health Act and accommodation status to compare between those with and without known dual diagnosis. We used frequency and length of admission as indicators of how successfully patients were being managed in the community and the cost to the hospital trust. Urine drug screening and referral to substance misuse services were chosen as markers of whether patients were being appropriately managed on admission.

A higher percentage of patients with dual diagnosis were detained under the Mental Health Act compared to those without substance misuse (89% versus 72%). They were more likely to have no fixed abode (28% versus 13%) and be non-compliant with treatment pre-admission (83% versus 56%). Patients with dual diagnosis also had a higher number of hospital admissions, with a greater proportion having 3 admissions that year (11% versus 3%).

Only 50% of patients with known dual diagnosis had a urine drug screen performed on admission and just 25% of patients who were currently misusing substances were referred to specialist services by the inpatient team.

Our audit found that there are overall poorer outcomes for patients with dual diagnosis versus a psychiatric illness only. It is evident that integration of services will improve the care we are able to provide and reduce costs associated with multiple admissions to hospital.

We identified three key areas for improvement. Firstly, we advised on the need to improve documentation. Additionally, we recommend ensuring assessment of current drug misuse is done on admission, including performing simple tests such as urine drug screening. Finally, we highlighted the need to improve discussions about substance misuse with patients, within teams and between services, aiming for integrated and holistic care.

Studies have shown that people with intellectual disability (ID) show a greater severity of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and atypical presentation, as well as having a greater risk of developing comorbidities, such as challenging behaviour, anxiety, tic disorders and sleep problems. It is estimated that 1.5% of patients with ID will have a clinical diagnosis of ADHD.

The aim of this audit was to find whether individuals with ID and ADHD, who are prescribed medication for ADHD are adequately monitored and reviewed in accordance with the ADHD medication prescription guidance by NICE and the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych).

This audit looked at ADHD medication prescription for the ID population within Greater Glasgow & Clyde NHS. This is the 6th audit cycle where electronic records (EMIS) were analysed between 28/9/19 to 09/10/20. (The 5th cycle data collection period ended on 28/9/19). We collected data on all patients aged over 18 years.

An audit tool was developed to find whether the following were documented; patient demographics, physical health monitoring, symptom severity, medication dosage, side effects, need for ongoing treatment and frequency of review. 100% of patients should have all components on the ADHD audit tool documented, as per NICE/ RCPsych prescription guidance.

32 patients were identified as being diagnosed with ADHD prescribed medication. One patient was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic which meant that the required monitoring was not fully carried out. The age ranged from 18 to 56 years. 75% had mild intellectual disability, 19% had moderate and 6% had severe, with no cases of profound intellectual disability. Blood Pressure/pulse was recorded in 84% of patients. Height/weight/ BMI was recorded in 81% of patients. 97% of patients had ADHD symptom severity, medication dosage, side effects, need for ongoing treatment and frequency of review recorded.

There is further scope for improvement in the monitoring and documentation of physical health observations, however there was a significant improvement compared to the previous cycle of the audit. Other aspects of monitoring and documentation appear to be recorded in almost 100% of patients. This finding emphasises the challenges of physical health monitoring and compliance in psychiatry as a whole. We need to continue to encourage awareness and education around the physical health risks to our patients, not only due to their comorbidities but also as a result of the psychotropic medications we prescribe them.

It is well-recognised by the RCPsych that mental illness is both a cause and consequence of social exclusion, and thus social inclusion is an important part of recovery and leads to better outcomes for patients.

The Lewisham Assessment and Liaison team Neighbourhood 4 (A&L N4) is a CMHT service that acts as an intake team for all referrals into secondary care mental health services, with the purpose of assessment and brief intervention. Currently, if a patient is assessed to potentially benefit from our local social inclusion service, Lewisham Community Wellbeing (LCW), they are advised to self-refer. However, there is no follow-up as to whether patients go on to do this.

Therefore, this audit aimed to calculate:

How many patients are advised to self-refer to LCW (advised referral)

How many of these patients make the self-referral to LCW (completed referral)

The electronic notes for patients who were accepted by the A&L N4 team from July to September 2020 were retrospectively analysed to see if an LCW self-referral was advised. A list of these patients was then given to LCW to check whether they had self-referred.

A&L N4 worked with 82 patients during the study period. 16 patients were advised to self-refer to LCW- an advised referral rate of 19.5%. There was notable month-to-month variation in the advised referral rate- 29.6% in July vs. 9.4% in September.

Of the 16 patients advised to self-refer to LCW, 5 did so- a completed referral rate of 31.3%.

The completed referral rate of 31.3% is difficult to interpret given there are no standards in this area. On one hand, the self-referral process as it currently exists is functioning; on the other, some two-thirds of patients are not making the most of a service deemed to be of benefit to their recovery.

To improve completed referral rates, efforts should be made to better ‘sell’ LCW to the patient. Potential ways of doing this would be through closer working with LCW- for example, LCW could join the clinical meetings more regularly to discuss new services they offer and feedback any patients A&L has referred. There should also be emphasis on making the self-referral process as straightforward as possible.

A secondary finding was the notable monthly variation in advised referral rates. It is important to ensure the A&L team are consistently identifying the right patients for LCW, and again, closer liaison with LCW would help achieve this.

To establish how often bowel habits are monitored in inpatients on clozapine

To determine how many of these patients are prescribed laxatives and whether these are utilised

It's estimated that 30-60% of patients will suffer from constipation whilst on clozapine; this can lead to ileus, intestinal obstruction and bowel ischaemia, all of which can be fatal. Constipation is much more common than clozapine-induced blood dyscrasias, and has a higher mortality rate. Despite this, there is no strict universal framework for bowel habit monitoring equivalent to the compulsory FBC monitoring. Local trust guidance indicates that bowel habits should be monitored regularly, at least at any point of blood sampling. However, monitoring processes across the trust were noted to be variable, as were laxative prescribing practices.

The data sample of current inpatients on clozapine across the trust was identified from pharmacy records. The patient's Rio notes from the preceding 3 months were searched for predetermined terms relating to bowel habits and constipation, and the notes were then analysed for assessment of bowel habit. The number of FBCs collected during this 3 month period was then used to produce comparison with the audit standard. The data on laxative prescribing were collected from current medication lists on EPMA.

A data sample of 31 current inpatients was identified. The audit found that only 54.8% (17) of patients had their bowel habits monitored at least with every FBC taken. There was significant variability between different wards, with the best performing ward having 100% adherence to the audit standard, and the worst performing having 0%. In terms of laxative prescribing, it was found that 87.1% (27) of patients had at least 1 regular or 1 PRN laxative prescribed. Regular laxatives were prescribed for 61.2% (19) of patients, whereas only PRN laxatives were prescribed in 25.8% (8) of patients. Of those prescribed only PRN laxatives, only 50% (4) ever utilised this medication.

Bowel habits are not consistently monitored across the trust in inpatients on clozapine, leaving room for potentially life-threatening side effects to be missed. Additionally, regular laxative prescribing is not standard throughout the trust, which could further add to the potential for significant constipation-related morbidity to occur. A standard method of monitoring bowel habits throughout the trust, as well as a trust laxative prescribing policy, could be a way of remedying this issue and preventing harmful outcomes for our patients on clozapine.

Diabetes is more prevalent in people with mental illness than in the general population. Those with both mental illness and diabetes are more likely to have poor glycaemic control. Clients with mental illness and diabetes are less likely to receive the 9 NICE recommended annual diabetic care processes than the general population. In 2017, the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS-IP) and the Royal College of Psychiatrists released guidance recommending that inpatient psychiatric admissions should be used as an opportunity to complete diabetic care processes, and a named staff member should be responsible for this.

We aimed to review local compliance with this JBDS-IP guidance, increase knowledge and improve local care for clients living with both mental illness and diabetes.

We reviewed the notes of all current inpatients to general, forensic or learning disability wards at our centre and identified all patients with a known diagnosis of Diabetes. We identified which of the 9 care processes had been completed (or had the most recent result documented, or had a plan made for completion) during this admission. We identified if a named staff member was responsible for completing processes on each ward, and whether the care processes were documented in the patients’ notes.

We identified 18 current diabetic inpatients at our centre (14% of inpatients). We found that none of these patients had a diabetic care processes review documented and none of these patients had had a foot check and urinary albumin performed during admission, or had the last community result identified and documented. We found that less than 15% of patients had a documented plan concerning the completion of retinal screening. One ward had a named staff member responsible for reviewing their diabetic patients’ screening. However, 6/9 care processes had been completed in the significant majority of patients (>75%).

Our centre is not compliant with the guideline audited. We have implemented a plan to increase awareness of care processes through posters, teaching (at junior and consultant level), creating documentation templates and ensuring wards nominate a staff member to review care processes. We have organised a re-audit. Organising foot examination, renal function testing and retinal screening during admission for clients who may have complicated social situations and may not be aware of (or be non adherent with) the long term management of their diabetes has the potential to significantly reduce morbidity in this client subgroup.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder associated with difficulties in social communication and language development, preoccupations, a need for routine, sensory sensitivities and emotional dysregulation. People with autism who have violently offended may be prescribed psychotropic medications to treat comorbidities, or off-license to manage aggressive or challenging behaviours. However, the evidence base for their use remains scarce.

This was a retrospective audit at Broadmoor Hospital, a high security psychiatric hospital in the United Kingdom, into the safe and appropriate prescribing of psychotropic medicines in those with an ASD compared to guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (CG142): “Autism spectrum disorder in adults: diagnosis and management”. This first cycle was undertaken during May and June 2020 and included all patients with a confirmed or equivocal diagnosis of ASD in the preceding five years.

A total of 22 participants were included in this study. Of these, 17 participants had a confirmed diagnosis of ASD and five participants had a suspected diagnosis of ASD, but without formal confirmation with neurocognitive testing. A total of 13 (76.5%) participants with confirmed ASD were prescribed antipsychotic medication, nine of whom had an established comorbid mental disorder with psychotic symptoms. Of the remaining four, three had a diagnosis of a personality disorder. Three participants in this study had a confirmed diagnosis of ASD without any additional comorbid mental health diagnoses. No patients were prescribed psychotropic medicines for the core symptoms of ASD. The specific documentation of off-license use of antipsychotic medicines in those without a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder was poor. This was not recorded in any such participant in the preceding 12 months.

This audit highlighted that dual diagnoses of ASD alongside non-affective psychosis and personality disorder are over-represented in this high security setting. The NICE clinical guidelines CG142 guidelines state that “antipsychotic medications should only be used for behaviour that challenges if …. the risk to the person or others is very severe”. By definition, all patients admitted to high security are deemed to be a grave and imminent risk to the public. Psychotropic medicines may therefore be clinically indicated at a much earlier stage than in community patients, instigated alongside appropriate psychosocial interventions and treatment of comorbid conditions. It may be that catered guidelines need to be formulated to support the safe and appropriate prescribing of psychotropic medicine in forensic settings.

Diabetes mellitus confers a twofold excess risk of cardiovascular disease - the leading cause of premature mortality in those with severe mental illness. Inpatients in forensic settings often have more severe, enduring and treatment-resistance forms of mental illness, sometimes necessitating combinations of prescribed antipsychotics. This audit aimed to assess adherence to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines NG28 titled “type 2 diabetes in adults: management” and summarise the metabolic parameters of those with diabetes mellitus at Broadmoor hospital.

This was a retrospective audit in a high secure forensic psychiatry hospital in the United Kingdom, into the management of patients with diabetes mellitus compared to guidance from NICE (NG28).

We report data from over 30 inpatients (out of approximately 200) at a high secure forensic psychiatry hospital with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus across two audit cycles. This audit identified improved adherence to national guidance regarding six monthly monitoring of HbA1c but with less than 50% of such patients having an HbA1c at or below the recommended target. This is in addition to high rates of other metabolic disorders such as obesity, dyslipidaemia and hypertension and a mean QRISK3 score that was markedly higher than a healthy person with the same age, sex, and ethnicity. There was a prevalence of background diabetic retinopathy of 8%, diabetic nephropathy of 5.4%, no recorded cases of diabetic neuropathy and a macrovascular disease prevalence of 5.4%. There were no new diagnoses of microvascular or macrovascular disease between audit cycles. One of the key changes between audit cycles was the recruitment of a dietician to the hospital. By the time of undertaking the second audit cycle, 23 patients had documented evidence of having been offered a referral to the dietician.

This audit highlighted the marked cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus at a high secure forensic psychiatry hospital. This includes suboptimal control of blood pressure, lipid profiles and HbA1c that increases the risk of premature mortality in these patients with severe mental illness. Wider, cultural changes in practice need to be implemented to improve the metabolic health of patients in the long-term inpatient setting of Broadmoor Hospital. This includes prescribers avoiding the most diabetogenic antipsychotics where possible, increasing the provision of sugar-free options at the on-site shop, examining the proportion of carbohydrate-rich foodstuffs in the shop and understanding the characteristics of its heaviest purchasers, and continued coordination between primary care and ward teams to support patients in making sustained changes to improve their metabolic health.

Comprehensive and timely data collection during a pandemic is crucial in developing guidelines and policy as well as evaluating their effectiveness. In turn, this will improve planning for future incidents. While this is being undertaken at a national level by Public Health England, more specific information as it relates to psychiatric care is important in understanding the neuropsychiatric, psychological and social effects of the pandemic. The management of patients with COVID-19 presents a unique challenge in inpatient psychiatry settings both in terms of diagnosis and treatment. This is perhaps greater still in forensic settings due to the increased risk of violence and aggression. This audit aimed to firstly assess the consistency of local practice to national guidance from Public Health England. Secondly, it aimed to describe the clinical management of suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19 in this high security forensic hospital and how readily broad, national guidance can be implemented in this unique setting. We present an audit with three cycles, one from each wave of COVID-19 in England during 2020.

This was a retrospective audit in a high secure forensic psychiatry hospital in the United Kingdom, into the investigation and management of suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19 compared to national guidelines from Public Health England. It includes three cycles, one undertaken in each national wave of COVID-19 in England in 2020.

Ten patients have been included in cycle 1, 12 in cycle 2 and 21 in cycle 3 as those where COVID-19 was a considered diagnosis. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in one patient in cycle 1 and 12 patients in cycle 3. All patients recovered, most of whom remained on-site with supportive care in self-isolation on a dedicated ward for positive cases. Three patients required additional treated with oral antibiotics and dexamethasone, one of whom required admission to the local general medical hospital for continuous supplemental oxygen.

This is the first study to describe the management of the novel COVID-19 pandemic in a high security forensic psychiatry hospital and how readily national guidance can be implemented in this unique setting. Hospital practice at identifying suspected cases and the management of confirmed cases of COVID-19 was shown to be consistent with national guidance. It also allowed for clinicians to exercise their judgement about testing for atypical cases and for repeat testing where appropriate.

Dementia is a progressive condition inflicting significant costs for health and social care services. In December 2017, there were 456,739 people on GP registers with a formal diagnosis of dementia. Making the right choice of anti-dementia medication with essential monitoring is one important aspect of care. Thus, the aim of this audit was to identify if current practice at Mossley Hill inpatients and outpatients service for older adults in Liverpool, was in accordance with the NICE Guideline NG97 (Dementia: assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers). Additionally, we aimed to evaluate whether Memantine was commenced according to BNF/SPC recommendations about e-GFR and whether this was documented on patient records, as well as to highlight areas of improvement.

An audit was carried out for all patients for whom Memantine was initiated, between June and August 2019. Sixty-nine patients were identified through trust Pharmacy records. Data were collected retrospectively, reviewing local electronic records (ePEX, RIO) and GP referrals. This included age, sex, diagnosis, indication for starting Memantine, decision context, prescriber, documentation of renal function status and communication of decision to the GP. Findings were compared to NICE guidance NG97 and presented at the local audit meeting with a view to recommend strategies for improvement.

Results indicated that most of the patients were female (64%) with the most common diagnosis being Alzheimer's disease (75%). Recurrent reasons for initiating Memantine were: contraindication for AChE treatment (25%); illness progression on AChE (22%); and severe dementia on initial presentation (23%). Usually, the decision to start Memantine treatment was made in MDT or after prescriber clinical review. In 68% of the reviewed cases, renal function status was documented. Patients' GP was informed of medication change in 86% of cases.

To conclude, in the majority of cases Memantine initiation was in line with NICE guidance. However, documentation can be improved, so as to facilitate future audit. We recommended creating a checklist for prescribing Memantine that could be integrated within the electronic records system.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a behavior disorder originating in childhood comprising of a constellation of features including inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidelines 2018 recommends methylphenidate as a first line pharmacological agent for treatment of children aged 5 years and over with ADHD. Lisdexamfetamine, dexamfetamine and atomoxetine are recommended in this order if methylphenidate is not tolerated or if symptoms did not respond to separate 6-week trials. Our aim was to, assess the transition of methylphenidate to atomoxetine, the reasons for switching and its clinical outcome in order to make recommendations to current practice regarding treatment of ADHD.

The study examined a total of 53 children between 0-16 years of age who were being treated for ADHD with atomoxetine at CYPS till September 2018. Data was collected from patients’ files retrospectively by using a proforma based on the NICE guidelines 2018 ADHD: diagnosis and management.

Out of 53 patients’ on atomoxetine in September 2018, 49 were included in the study. Results recorded side-effects as the main reason for switching from methylphenidate to atomoxetine. Unwanted side-effects were documented in 71.7% of patients of which 57.9% exhibited more than 1 side-effect with the two commonest side-effects documented being weight loss and decreased appetite. The audit highlighted the fact that the correct dose of atomoxetine was only administered in 17.2% of children with 56.9% of patient's being given a higher dose than recommended. Initial weight was not documented in 19% and hence, ideal dose could not be calculated. Overall, atomoxetine was shown to be an effective treatment. Out of the 40 patients documented to have hyperactivity this symptom was decreased in 82.5% whilst 82.9% were shown to have increased concentration. 35 patients had documented impulsivity and this was decreased in 62.9% of cases. 11 patients had documented anxiety with 72.7% being treated effectively with atomoxetine. 31% of patients’ had documented side-effects with 16% of these being tics. 20% of patient's required augmentation.

The results indicate that the majority of doctors at CYPS in Malta adhered to the NICE guidelines 2018 and atomoxetine was proven to be efficacious as a second line drug in the treatment of ADHD. However, better adherence to NICE guidelines is required when it comes to the calculation of appropriate dosage. Our prediction is had dose recommendations according to weight been adhered to there may have been less side-effects documented.

Measure compliance with standards requiring baseline work up before Lithium therapy is commenced and subsequent Lithium level monitoring during the initiation phase

All inpatients and outpatients who were started on Lithium between 2018 and 2019 within the Leicestershire Partnership NHS trust. Case notes were of patients 128 were retrieved from the electronic system and an audit proforma was completed to ascertain adherence to auditing standards as per BNF and trust guidelines. Parameters monitored were full blood count (FBC), renal functions test including serum electrolytes, thyroid function test, and BMI before commencing Lithium, and serum Lithium periodically after. ECG was needed for those patients with cardiovascular illness. Data were systematically compiled and analyzed descriptively using Microsoft Excel

A total of 128 patients were included in the study. 111 (86.71%) had FBC, 118 (92.19%) had renal function test and electrolytes, 114 (89.06%) had thyroid function test while 99 (77.34%) had their BMI/weight recorded before initiating Lithium. 26 out of 36 patients with cardiovascular disorder had their ECG recorded. After Lithium was commenced, 108 (84.37%) had serum Lithium tested a week later, while only 89 (69.53%) had lithium monitored weekly. Trust guidelines recommend weekly monitoring for up to 4 weeks after a stable dose was reached. This was monitored in only 16 out of 128 patients.

Most of the patients had blood test done before being commenced on Lithium. However it was observed that serum Lithium was not adequately monitored at regular intervals after dose escalations. These finding indicate that there has to be greater awareness of the trust and BNF guidelines with regards to Lithium monitoring.

To assess follow-up of sodium levels for in-patients prescribed antidepressants in practice compare to the standard of 3 monthly sodium levels for all patients who are prescribed antidepressants and at risk of hyponatraemia

A list of the 20 most recently discharged patients from Meridian Ward, an older-adult functional inpatient ward, was prepared by the team administrator on 6th May 2020.

We audited the entire duration of our patient's stay on Meridian Ward (we did not include periods of their admission when they were on other wards) using the electronic notes system, Carenotes.

We also checked the electronic biochemistry results system, ICE, for sodium results, and the discharge summary for mentions of fluid restriction, medications and handover to GP of sodium-checking. We also checked scanned drug charts to see if they were on antidepressants and other implicated drugs.

For people with episodes of hyponatraemia, in order to retrieve further info we looked at discharge summary and searched the activity notes for the following terms

“Hyponat”

“sodium”

“fluid restrict”

“Low na”

We regarded the following conditions as risk factors for hyponatraemia:

cardiac

malignancy

respiratory

hypothyroid

renal

hepatic

stroke

We regarded following medications as risk factors:

opioids

diuretics

carbamazepine

theophylline

antipsychotics

NSAIDs

PPIs

ACE-I

ARBs

amiodarone

domperidone

sulphonylureas

14 of the 20 patients were taking antidepressants. Of those: 13 were eligible for regular sodium monitoring due to risk factors 11 of these had 3-monthly sodium levels during admission For only 2 of these did we make a plan for the GP to continue to monitor the sodium level in community 3 had an episode of hyponatraemia implicated antidepressants: sertraline plus mirtazapine mirtazapine (very serious episode which caused seizure) sertraline for 2 of them an appropriate plan was made 1 without a plan - a mild hyponatraemia with nothing documented in the notes

During their admission to Meridian Ward, 85% of patients taking antidepressants who had risk factors for hyponatraemia had three-monthly sodium levels in line with the trust guidance. However, only two patients (15%) had a plan for further sodium levels in the discharge summary sent to the GP. This highlights a need for improved awareness of risk factors for hyponatraemia and, in particular, improved communication with general practitioners who are going to take over prescribing of antidepressant medications.

Recommendations

3 monthly Na levels for all patients with risk factors

i.e. on any antidepressant prescribed PLUS any one of:

>80 years

History of low sodium

AKI during admission

Relevant comorbidities (see above)

>1 antidepressant

Other meds that can cause hyponatraemia

More frequent monitoring for all those with with multiple risk factors AND who are starting/increasing antidepressant:

baseline sodium plus repeat after 2 and 4 weeks

Communicate to GP the need for 3-monthly sodium monitoring for those with above risk factors

Re-audit in 6-12 months’ time

To check the extent to which National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines were being followed in clinical practice with regards to prescribing antipsychotic medication to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) patients with a diagnosed learning disability (LD).

A data collection tool (based on a similar Royal College of Psychiatrists [RCPsych] audit) was filled out with retrospective data from patients’ clinical records, then analysed using Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Powerpoint.

The agreed standards were the NICE guidelines.

There were no ethical issues as the data were retrospective and anonymised.

Sample size was 13, comprising 7 males and 6 females.

All service users were less than 18 years of age.

7 out of the 13 patients who were prescribed antipsychotics had a Severe/Profound LD.

Among the 5 patients who had been prescribed antipsychotic medication, 4 were on Risperidone and 2 were on Aripiprazole. The reasons for starting antipsychotic medication were clearly documented for all 5, the most common reasons being overt aggressive behaviour and general agitation/anxiety.

Only 1 patient had antipsychotic medication initiated in the previous 12 months. NICE guidelines had been generally followed for the management of this case, with good documented evidence.

For the other 4 patients, in whom antipsychotic medication was initiated more than 12 months ago, there was a lack of documentation of the subsequent assessment of side effects, extra-pyramidal side effects, body weight, blood pressure, glycaemic control and lipid profile. 1 of these patients did not have a documented review of antipsychotic medication in the previous 6 months. For the other 3 patients, their medication reviews did not consider whether to reduce the dose or stop antipsychotic medication.

1 patient had been transferred to primary care, with a clear transfer of prescribing responsibility and documented evidence that written guidance was provided to primary care which addressed all the necessary management details.

Although there was clear documentation of reasons for initiating antipsychotics, there appeared to be a lack of awareness of NICE guidelines for antipsychotic medication reviews, side effect and metabolic markers assessment, and their documentation. This is an area for potential change in practice to conform better to national guidelines and improve patient care.