Rapid tranquillisation – the parenteral administration of a sedating psychotropic – is frequently utilised to manage acute behavioural disturbances. Each mental health trust in England utilises independent guidelines for rapid tranquillisation, which vary geographically in both recommendations for therapeutic agents, as well as the format in which this information presented. Audits have identified that there is currently poor adherence to rapid tranquillisation protocol guidelines; this may be due to a lack of guideline clarity allowing for personal interpretation. This service evaluation aims to determine the clarity and uniformity of protocols outlined in mental health trust guidelines, in addition to analysing the outcomes of guideline testing to identify if there is consistency between policies, or whether outcomes varied depending on the trust guidelines used.

Five reviewers (of differing positions throughout clinical training) utilised 52 guidelines from each mental health trust in England, as well as Maudsley and NICE. These were assessed using the same fictional scenario, which simulated a common presentation in which the use of rapid tranquillisation is required. Reviewers deduced the most appropriate therapeutic agent according to the guideline, rated the clarity of each guideline and were invited to leave comments highlighting the guideline's useability.

Seven different management plans were generated by the majority of respondents from the 52 guidelines. Lorazepam was the most frequently selected therapeutic agent. Guidelines with better subjective ratings of clarity had more agreement between reviewers, but full agreement between reviewers was only present for 10 out of 52 guidelines. For 11 guidelines, consensual agreement between reviewers was not reached. Qualitative analysis of comments identified the inclusion of past medical history, drug history and flow charts as positive sub-themes. Redundant language, contradictions and the suggestion to seek senior intervention before trialling a second agent were viewed negatively. Many guidelines did not sufficiently emphasise the need for performing an ECG before administering therapeutic agents, such as haloperidol, which may lead to potentially fatal arrhythmias.

There is no national consensus on the most appropriate rapid tranquillisation agents, with the available evidence being interpreted variously by different trusts and organisations. Poor guideline comprehensibility impacts clinician adherence and allows for personal preference to influence choice of drug. Clear guidelines utilising flow charts to succinctly outline relevant doses and absolute contraindications were viewed favourably by reviewers. The findings of this project highlights to relevant stakeholders the attributes that should be implemented when improving guidelines for the future.

Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHIs) that meet the definition of a medical device are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the UK. The MHRA uses procedures that were originally developed for pharmaceuticals to assess the safety of DMHIs. There is recognition that this may not be ideal, as is evident by an ongoing consultation for reform led by the MHRA and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

The aim of this study was to generate an experts’ consensus on how the medical regulatory method used for assessing safety could best be adapted for DMHIs.

An online Delphi study containing three rounds was conducted with an international panel of 20 experts with experience/knowledge in the field of UK digital mental health.

Sixty-four items were generated, of which 41 achieved consensus (64%). Consensus emerged around ten recommendations, falling into five main themes: Enhancing the quality of adverse events data in DMHIs; Re-defining serious adverse events for DMHIs; Reassessing short-term symptom deterioration in psychological interventions as a therapeutic risk; Maximising the benefit of the Yellow Card Scheme; and Developing a harmonised approach for assessing the safety of psychological interventions in general.

The implementation of the recommendations provided by this consensus could improve the assessment of safety of DMHIs, making them more effective in detecting and mitigating risk.

To assess cost-effectiveness of late time-window endovascular treatment (EVT) in a clinical trial setting and a “real-world” setting.

Data are from the randomized ESCAPE trial and a prospective cohort study (ESCAPE-LATE). Anterior circulation large vessel occlusion patients presenting > 6 hours from last-known-well were included, whereby collateral status was an inclusion criterion for ESCAPE but not ESCAPE-LATE. A Markov state transition model was built to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for EVT in addition to best medical care vs. best medical care only in a clinical trial setting (comparing ESCAPE-EVT to ESCAPE control arm patients) and a “real-world” setting (comparing ESCAPE-LATE to ESCAPE control arm patients). We performed an unadjusted analysis, using 90-day modified Rankin Scale(mRS) scores as model input and analysis adjusted for baseline factors. Acceptability of EVT was calculated using upper/lower willingness-to-pay thresholds of 100,000 USD/50,000 USD/QALY.

Two-hundred and forty-nine patients were included (ESCAPE-LATE:n = 200, ESCAPE EVT-arm:n = 29, ESCAPE control-arm:n = 20). Late EVT in addition to best medical care was cost effective in the unadjusted analysis both in the clinical trial and real-world setting, with acceptability 96.6%–99.0%. After adjusting for differences in baseline variables between the groups, late EVT was marginally cost effective in the clinical trial setting (acceptability:49.9%–61.6%), but not the “real-world” setting (acceptability:32.9%–42.6%).

EVT for LVO-patients presenting beyond 6 hours was cost effective in the clinical trial setting and “real-world” setting, although this was largely related to baseline patient differences favoring the “real-world” EVT group. After adjusting for these, EVT benefit was reduced in the trial setting, and absent in the real-world setting.

Protecting all human rights of people with mental health conditions is globally important. However, to facilitate practical implementation of rights, it is often necessary to decide which of these rights should be given priority, especially when they conflict with each other.

The aim of the Priorities of Human Rights and Mental Health (PHRAME) project is to develop a replicable approach to establish a proposed set of high-priority human rights of people with mental health conditions, to facilitate practical decision-making and implementation of such rights.

A two-stage Delphi-style study with stakeholders was conducted to generate a list of key rights of people with mental health conditions, and rank priorities among these rights in terms of feasibility, urgency and overall importance.

The stakeholders in this study consistently ranked three rights as top priorities: (a) the right to freedom from torture, cruel inhuman treatment and punishment; (b) the right to health and access to services/treatment; and (c) the right to protection and safety in emergency situations.

Insights from PHRAME can support decision-making about the priority to be given to human rights, to guide practical action. This approach can also be used to assess how human rights are prioritised in different settings and by different stakeholders. This study identifies the clear need for a central voice for people with lived experience in research and implementation of decisions about the priority of human rights, ensuring that action respects the opinion of people whose rights are directly affected.

Pain, depression, anxiety, and psychosis are common non-cognitive symptoms of dementia. They are often underdiagnosed and can cause significant distress and carer strain. Numerous standardised assessment tools (SATs) exist and are recommended for the assessment of non-cognitive symptoms of dementia. Anecdotal evidence suggests that SATs are used rarely and inconsistently. This study aims to explore which SATs to detect non-cognitive symptoms of dementia are recommended in local guidelines and used in practice across different organisations. Secondary aims were to identify barriers and facilitators to using these tools.

This service evaluation is cross-sectional in design. A questionnaire was developed and distributed to clinicians working with patients with advanced dementia in any setting, across four geographical locations (Leeds, Bradford, Hull, and Cambridge). Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data from free-text comments were interpreted using thematic analysis.

135 professionals from a range of backgrounds and clinical settings completed the survey. Respondents indicated that SATs for non-cognitive symptoms in dementia were rarely used or recommended. Respondents were unaware of the existence of most SATs listed. 80% respondents felt that SATs were a useful adjunct to a structured clinical assessment. The most recommended tool was the Abbey Pain Scale, with 41 respondents indicating its recommendation by their Trust. Perceived facilitators to using SATs include education and training, reliable IT systems and accessibility. Barriers include lack of time and training.

Numerous SATs are available for use in dementia, but they are rarely recommended in local policy or used in practice. There appears to be a lack of consensus on which, if any, are superior diagnostic tools, and on how or when they should be applied.

To assess the frequency of prescription of psychotropic medication in patients with a primary diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) following admission to Clock View Hospital, an inpatient unit in Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust.

A retrospective analysis of the electronic (RiO) record of 50 patients discharged from Clock View Hospital between 1 January 2020 and 1 November 2020 was performed to assess prescribing practice.

Twenty-five patients with a diagnosis of EUPD and no associated psychiatric comorbidities were included in the sample, as well as 25 patients with a diagnosis of EUPD and associated psychiatric comorbidities.

80% of the 25 patients with EUPD and associated psychiatric comorbidities were prescribed psychotropic medication prior to admission to hospital (56% an antidepressant, 24% a mood stabiliser, 60% an antipsychotic and 8% a benzodiazepine). 64% of patients were prescribed two or more psychotropic medications. 28% were initiated on new psychotropic medications following admission. For four of the seven prescriptions commenced on psychotropic medication, prescribing practice was as advised in Mersey Care's EUPD guidelines.

Of the 25 patients with EUPD and no associated psychiatric comorbidities, 96% of the patients were prescribed psychotropic medication prior to admission to hospital (56% an antidepressant, 20% a mood stabiliser, 72% an antipsychotic and 12% a benzodiazepine). 68% of patients were prescribed two or more psychotropic medications. Following admission, 28% of patients were initiated on new regular psychotropic medications. For five of the eight prescriptions for new psychotropic medication, prescribing practice was as advised in Mersey Care's EUPD guidelines.

78% of the 50 patients were prescribed as required (PRN) psychotropic medication. In 21 patients, PRN medication was prescribed for longer than one week.

There is a higher rate of prescribing of antipsychotic prescription in those EUPD patients with no psychiatric comorbidities compared to associated psychiatric comorbidities (72% vs 60%). Surprisingly, there was a lower rate of psychotropic polypharmacy in those with psychiatric comorbidities.

Use of PRN psychotropic medication for longer than a week was higher in those patients with psychiatric comorbidities compared to those without psychiatric comorbidities (58% vs 50%). Benzodiazepines were overwhelmingly the most consistently prescribed PRN medication for patients with EUPD.

One action to consider would be highlighting the importance of trialling psychologically-minded interventions and supportive psychotherapy prior to initiation of psychotropic medication. There also needs to be consideration to use of the sedative antihistamine promethazine as a first-line PRN medication for acute agitation.

To assess incorporation of and access to psychological therapies for patients with a diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality (EUPD) who were discharged from the inpatient wards at Clock View Hospital, an inpatient unit in Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust.

A retrospective analysis of the electronic record of 50 patients discharged from Clock View Hospital between 1st of January 2020 and 1st of November 2020 was performed to assess whether patients were engaged with psychotherapy and whether they had an extended care plan in place.

25 patients with EUPD and no associated psychiatric comorbidities were included in the sample, as well as 25 patients with EUPD and associated psychiatric comorbidities.

Those EUPD patients with no psychiatric comorbidities were more likely to be under the care of the Liverpool Personality Disorder (PD) Hub compared to those with psychiatric comorbidities (12 vs seven patients). Of the 19 patients under the PD Hub, 11 had a Case Manager, four were engaged with the PD Hub's day services / safe service and one with a PD Hub readiness group. Six of the 50 patients had a documented refusal to engage with the PD Hub.

Only 27 of the patients had either received psychological intervention, were on a waiting list, or had a referral in place. 16% of patients refused a psychotherapy referral. Of the 20 patients who received psychological treatment, eight completed a form of psychotherapy (cognitive analytic therapy, dialectical behaviour therapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing) and 12 psychological intervention (either structured case management, psychoeducation or emotional coping skills).

Only 28 of 50 patients had an extended care plan and 28 had a collaborative risk management plan in place.

There was no obvious correlation between previous completion of psychological therapy and degree of polypharmacy. Median admission time was reduced for patients under the PD Hub (six vs 14 days). This was also reduced for patients who accessed psychotherapy or psychotherapeutic interventions (nine vs 10 days).

This audit coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent reduced access to the PD Hub and psychotherapy service. There is a need to consider barriers to EUPD patients receiving psychotherapy.

EUPD patients may have numerous hospital admissions and frequently present in crisis. Given the iatrogenic harm from prolonged hospital admission, there is a need to consider incorporating a collaborative extended care plan and risk management plan as part of discharge planning, following admission to hospital.

Clarifying the relationship between depression symptoms and cardiometabolic and related health could clarify risk factors and treatment targets. The objective of this study was to assess whether depression symptoms in midlife are associated with the subsequent onset of cardiometabolic health problems.

The study sample comprised 787 male twin veterans with polygenic risk score data who participated in the Harvard Twin Study of Substance Abuse (‘baseline’) and the longitudinal Vietnam Era Twin Study of Aging (‘follow-up’). Depression symptoms were assessed at baseline [mean age 41.42 years (s.d. = 2.34)] using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule, Version III, Revised. The onset of eight cardiometabolic conditions (atrial fibrillation, diabetes, erectile dysfunction, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, myocardial infarction, sleep apnea, and stroke) was assessed via self-reported doctor diagnosis at follow-up [mean age 67.59 years (s.d. = 2.41)].

Total depression symptoms were longitudinally associated with incident diabetes (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07–1.57), erectile dysfunction (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.10–1.59), hypercholesterolemia (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.04–1.53), and sleep apnea (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13–1.74) over 27 years after controlling for age, alcohol consumption, smoking, body mass index, C-reactive protein, and polygenic risk for specific health conditions. In sensitivity analyses that excluded somatic depression symptoms, only the association with sleep apnea remained significant (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09–1.60).

A history of depression symptoms by early midlife is associated with an elevated risk for subsequent development of several self-reported health conditions. When isolated, non-somatic depression symptoms are associated with incident self-reported sleep apnea. Depression symptom history may be a predictor or marker of cardiometabolic risk over decades.