Improving the quality and reliability of clinical reviews of psychotropic PRN medicines in a large English mental health Trust.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
James Innes, Uju Ugochukwu, Julie Trenholm, Leo Boswell
{"title":"Improving the quality and reliability of clinical reviews of psychotropic PRN medicines in a large English mental health Trust.","authors":"James Innes, Uju Ugochukwu, Julie Trenholm, Leo Boswell","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Psychotropic medicines are commonly prescribed as when required (PRN) prescriptions for inpatients for anxiety, insomnia or as part of a strategy to de-escalate situations that may lead to violence and aggression. While these medicines can provide benefit, safeguards need to be in place to ensure they are regularly reviewed and not overused.</p><p><strong>Aim and methodology: </strong>To (1) establish baseline practice around the clinical review of psychotropic PRN medicines for inpatients and (2) improve clinical practice around the clinical review of PRN medicines from baseline and the end of the improvement programme.Centrally coordinated, locally driven, improvement programme taking place over a 5-month period between February and June 2024. The programme employed a learning system approach to enable doctors to test change ideas and share areas of good practice as they sought to understand the problem, test different approaches and focus on holding the gains.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>21 wards participated and at an aggregate level achieved both aims with the recording of clinical reviews in the notes increasing from 89% to 90% and the quality of what was recorded in the notes increasing from 51% to 72%. There were signs of increased adjustments to psychotropic PRN medicines during the programme and in some wards decreased rates of psychotropic PRN administration to patients. However, while overall levels of psychotropic PRN medicine administration benchmarked lower than those reported in other studies, there were significant differences in clinical reviews, prescription and administration rates between a group of wards that fully engaged and partially engaged in the improvement programme.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Employing a learning system approach helped create a context suitable for improvement and led to improvements in the review of psychotropic PRN medicines. Exploring the variation between wards in fully engaged and partially engaged groups of wards could be a next step for the Trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11865756/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003094","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Psychotropic medicines are commonly prescribed as when required (PRN) prescriptions for inpatients for anxiety, insomnia or as part of a strategy to de-escalate situations that may lead to violence and aggression. While these medicines can provide benefit, safeguards need to be in place to ensure they are regularly reviewed and not overused.

Aim and methodology: To (1) establish baseline practice around the clinical review of psychotropic PRN medicines for inpatients and (2) improve clinical practice around the clinical review of PRN medicines from baseline and the end of the improvement programme.Centrally coordinated, locally driven, improvement programme taking place over a 5-month period between February and June 2024. The programme employed a learning system approach to enable doctors to test change ideas and share areas of good practice as they sought to understand the problem, test different approaches and focus on holding the gains.

Findings: 21 wards participated and at an aggregate level achieved both aims with the recording of clinical reviews in the notes increasing from 89% to 90% and the quality of what was recorded in the notes increasing from 51% to 72%. There were signs of increased adjustments to psychotropic PRN medicines during the programme and in some wards decreased rates of psychotropic PRN administration to patients. However, while overall levels of psychotropic PRN medicine administration benchmarked lower than those reported in other studies, there were significant differences in clinical reviews, prescription and administration rates between a group of wards that fully engaged and partially engaged in the improvement programme.

Conclusions: Employing a learning system approach helped create a context suitable for improvement and led to improvements in the review of psychotropic PRN medicines. Exploring the variation between wards in fully engaged and partially engaged groups of wards could be a next step for the Trust.

背景:精神药物通常作为住院病人治疗焦虑、失眠的必要处方(PRN),或作为缓解可能导致暴力和攻击行为的情况的策略的一部分。虽然这些药物可以带来益处,但需要制定保障措施,确保定期对其进行审查,避免过度使用:在 2024 年 2 月至 6 月的 5 个月时间内,开展由中央协调、地方推动的改进计划。该计划采用了一种学习系统方法,使医生们能够在了解问题、测试不同方法并集中精力保持成果的过程中,测试变革理念并分享良好实践领域。研究结果:21 个病房参与了该计划,并在总体水平上实现了两个目标,笔记中记录临床审查的比例从 89% 提高到 90%,笔记中记录的质量从 51% 提高到 72%。有迹象表明,在该计划期间,对精神药物 PRN 药物的调整有所增加,一些病房对病人使用精神药物 PRN 药物的比例有所下降。不过,尽管精神药物 PRN 用药的总体水平低于其他研究报告中的基准水平,但完全参与和部分参与改进计划的病房在临床审查、处方和用药率方面存在显著差异:采用学习系统的方法有助于创造一个适合改进的环境,从而改进精神药物 PRN 药物的审查。探索完全参与和部分参与病房组之间的差异可能是信托基金下一步的工作重点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信