Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T21:35:11.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Clinical Audit on Adult ADHD From Community Mental Health Teams: Experience From the East of North Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Wamiqur Rehman Gajdhar*
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham, United Kingdom
Jiann Lin Loo
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham, United Kingdom
Ugochukwu Anyanwu
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Flintshire, United Kingdom
Okachi Okachi
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Flintshire, United Kingdom
Bassem Habeeb
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Flintshire, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) has formulated “Attention Deficit-Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) in Adults: Good Practice Guidelines” to provide evidence-based guidance for clinicians, acknowledging there is an increasing burden on the services with the assessment and management of adult ADHD in the United Kingdom. As there is no trust-wide policy in North Wales and some practitioners perceive that it is challenging to perform an extensive assessment for ADHD in the adult secondary mental health services, there is a need to study the pre-referral workup and diagnostic approach for patients referred to the adult mental health services. This clinical audit is aimed at understanding the guideline adherence level of the assessment and management of adult ADHD by both primary and secondary mental health services in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board.

Methods

Convenient sampling was performed on 50 patients from three community mental health teams (CMHT) from East of North Wales for patients with a confirmed diagnosis of adult ADHD. The source of information included referrals from the primary care (including general practitioners and primary mental health service) and medical records from the secondary mental health care. Relevant clinical information was collected and coded as “present”, “absent”, or “unclear”. The data were compared to the standard derived from “ADHD in adults: Good practice guidelines”.

Results

Only 34% of the referrals documented the use of Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, 18% documented the use of Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ-10), and none documented the use of Weiss Functional Impairment Rating Scale (W-FIRS).

Only 46% of patients was diagnosed using a standardised instrument after more than one session of diagnostic assessment. The percentage of documentation of baseline blood pressure, pulse rate, weight, and height were 58%, 70%, 50%, and 44% respectively.

Most documentations fell below 50%, including comorbid and family history of physical health conditions, history of neurodevelopmental issues, and corroborative history. All teams performed well with the documentation of functional impairment, comorbid anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and substance use disorder, i.e., >90% of patients.

Conclusion

This audit reflects the need for quality improvement in documentation in both primary and secondary care settings although the solution should not add to the existing burden of practitioners. Convenient sampling from East of North Wales limits the generalisability of findings. Also, the absence of data may be contributed by logistic issues around paper-based medical records, i.e., illegible handwriting and inability to locate the documentation.

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

Footnotes

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

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.