Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T20:33:29.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Psychiatric Emergency Bleep Documentation Enhancement Audit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Anastasija Davidova*
Affiliation:
NHS Lothian, West Lothian, United Kingdom
Scott Young
Affiliation:
NHS Lothian, West Lothian, United Kingdom
Amal Al Sayegh
Affiliation:
NHS Lothian, West Lothian, United Kingdom
Jude Halford
Affiliation:
NHS Lothian, West Lothian, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting 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

West Lothian Psychiatry operates in a district general hospital, fostering a close working relationship between medical and psychiatric practitioners including the Psychiatric 2222 call (akin to medical emergency/cardiac arrest response). No other team like this has been identified in Scotland. Whilst there is a range of scenarios where this is used, there is no ‘gold standard' for defining a psychiatric emergency or how to document these. Preliminary data gathered between August and November 2022 revealed concerns regarding call appropriateness, medical staff proficiency in de-escalation and restraint on medical wards, inadequate handovers, and poor documentation. This prompted a collaborative quality improvement project, undertaken by psychiatric and medical team leaders. Part of this initiative was an audit to improve the documentation of psychiatric emergencies to achieve a 90% compliance rate using a new checklist.

Methods

Cycle 1 of the audit (December 2022 to April 2023) identified patients through the 2222 calls to switchboard (n = 54). TrakCare notes were reviewed to assess call rationale and outcomes, focusing on documentation by the attending psychiatric team. A documentation checklist within the electronic records system was designed and introduced in July 2023, for completion by the junior doctor. Cycle 2 (November 2023 to January 2024, n = 47) aimed to assess improvements by comparing results with the previous cycle.

Results

There was a significant improvement in documentation rates with the checklist (44% to 90%). Indirect enhancements were observed in ward nursing documentation (65% to 83%) and medical ward doctor documentation (39% to 57%). Appropriateness of emergency calls increased from 65% to 74%, with attending doctors' participation in emergencies longer than 10 minutes rising to 68% from 47%. The initial audit revealed a lack of awareness among senior medical staff regarding overnight psychiatric emergency calls, especially in cases of repeated calls for the same individual. The improved documentation played a pivotal role in addressing this issue, facilitating effective information sharing and changes in patient management plans, reducing further emergency calls.

Conclusion

The documentation checklist significantly improved junior doctor documentation, positively impacting patient care and communication among staff. This successful intervention serves as a promising model that can be replicated in other documentation domains. Moreover, this project has set the stage for broader initiatives within a larger Quality Improvement framework. The ongoing efforts are directed towards establishing a shared model for the psychiatric emergency bleep, optimising staffing resources for restraint procedures and improving staff de-escalation skills.

Type
5 Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.