Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T22:45:40.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction of a Standardised Admissions Template Improves Adherence to Physical Health Assessment Standards on Admission to an Inpatient Psychiatry Unit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Rachael Pulley*
Affiliation:
Woodland View Hospital, Ayrshire, United Kingdom
Shaina Dillon
Affiliation:
Hairmyres Hospital, Lanarkshire, United Kingdom
Roshanna Pillai
Affiliation:
Gartnavel Hospital, Glasgow, 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 risk of omitting an admission Electrocardiogram (ECG) in psychiatric inpatients can be high - patients may be more likely to have comorbid disease or require antipsychotic medication. Lack of an ECG represents inadequate physical health assessment, and may impact on morbidity and mortality from physical illness – impairing the ability to safely treat psychiatric illness, for example with antipsychotic medications. This audit aimed to establish achievement of admission ECG within 24hours, and to improve this if possible.

Methods

Two doctors gathered data retrospectively using written and electronic admission records for 41 psychiatric admissions in a one week period in September 2019.

Following the first audit cycle demonstrating low levels of policy adherence, an admission proforma containing prompts and requiring a signature of the admitting doctor was introduced. Data collection was repeated on 16 admissions during September 2020 using an identical process.

Results

The intervention led to an increase in ECGs performed within 24hours (65% to 83% in 18-65 year olds, 52% to 60% in over 65 year olds), whilst documentation of delayed ECGs being justified and reattempted also improved (28% to 100% in 18-65 year olds, and 50% to 100% in over 65 year olds).

The proforma was utilised in 75% of audited general adult admissions, and 66% of audited older adult admissions.

Conclusion

This admission unit was failing to meet expected standards of physical health assessment, which could result in harm. Reasons for this varied, but were attributed to inconsistent admission processes resulting in junior staff being unaware of the requirement, or miscommunication between staff. Handover of outstanding tasks occurred, but was not taken ownership of.

Data collection was unfortunately impaired by reduced patient numbers secondary to COVID-19 admission processes – particularly in the older adult ward. As such some of the results in those over 65 years are positive, but may be spurious. It would be useful to repeat the audit once admission levels return to normal.

The unified assessment document provided a framework for inclusion of all relevant elements and reminders for the admitting doctor. It required formal responsibility to be taken by the admitting doctor to ensure completion. Qualitative feedback demonstrated that it improved the quality and ease of admission documentation, and enabled thorough assessments which were useful when planning patient care and discharge letters.

This audit demonstrated that use of an assessment proforma results in improved adherence to physical healthcare policies, and contribute towards improved patient care.

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.