• Assessing the compliance of accurately documenting medication history in CAMHS - completion of the audit cycle

      Guest, Laura; Lankappa, Sudheer (2021)
      Aims To assess the documentation of medication across all Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) teams in the south region of Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust against a locally agreed protocol. The aim is to ensure accurate and timely documentation of medication history in a standardised way to reduce the risk of medication errors. Method We randomly selected 78 patients across seven teams within CAMHS that were currently prescribed medication as of November 2020. We reviewed each patient to see if medication history had been recorded in the specified section of the trust's patient database PARIS. We then cross referenced this information with the patient notes, clinic letters and prescriptions to review accuracy of information in terms of recording of drug name, dose, frequency, and whether the medication was regular or as required. We compared the data to the results of a previous audit in 2017 which used the same methods. Result Of the 78 patients, 74% (n = 58) had medication recorded in the correct section of PARIS compared to 13% in the 2017 audit. We found that compliance varied between different CAMHS teams ranging from 0% to 100%. Of those with medication history recorded, 86% had all drug names listed correctly, 79% had all drugs listed at the correct dose, 71% had the correct frequency recorded and 81% had whether the medication was regular, or PRN recorded. Conclusion Although we have seen improvement in standardised documentation of medication history since 2017, it remains difficult to rely on this information being up to date and reliable. There was a wide range of compliance in documentation of medication history across different teams, possibly reflecting how effectively the teaching following the previous 2017 audit had been delivered to each team. We have completed more teaching for medical and non-medical prescribers across all localities to highlight the importance of timely and standardised documentation. This is particularly important in CAMHS where the prescribing of medication often remains the responsibility of secondary care, with clinicians regularly prescribing on behalf of colleagues from other teams. Our findings support the move within the Trust towards a system where medication can be both documented and electronically prescribed in the same place (System One).
    • Audit on clozapine dose and plasma level correlation for patients with chronic treatment-resistant psychosis

      Macnamara, Olivia; Lawton, John D.; Lankappa, Sudheer (2021)
      Aims Clozapine is associated with a risk of severe adverse events for which there are current monitoring systems are in place; however, there are no established regimens for monitoring of clozapine plasma levels. Recent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) guidance advises clozapine levels should be monitored in certain clinical situations where toxicity may be suspected. This audit aimed to evaluate current practice of clozapine level monitoring within one Local Mental Health Team (LMHT). Method Electronic (RiO) records of 41 patients (33 male, 8 female; aged from 27 to 76 years; mean age 45 years) registered to the ZTAS system within the Nottingham City Central LMHT were reviewed. 46% had been on clozapine for over 16 years. 73.3% of patients were within clusters 12 and 13; 25.4% of patients were in cluster 11, with one patient in cluster 8. Dates of clozapine plasma level tests for each patient between 2006 and 2020 were found on the electronic NoTIS system, along with clozapine, norclozapine and total clozapine levels. Concurrent clozapine dose and regimens were obtained from pharmacy records from 2018 onwards. Result 273 clozapine plasma levels were conducted between 2006 and 2020. The average interval between levels taken was 10 months, 2 weeks but had a wide range, the shortest interval being 2 days, the longest being 13 years. 88 levels taken were >600 ug/L, suggesting increased toxicity risk. 108 levels were <350 ug/L, suggesting possible sub-optimal dosing or non-compliance. Statistical tests on correlation coefficient, although statistically non-significant (R = 0.37), showed a positive trend between total clozapine dose and the plasma level between all 3 parameters (i.e. clozapine, norclozapine and total clozapine). Conclusion There does not appear to be any routine plasma clozapine level monitoring throughout the LMHT with an average interval between tests of 10 months. There was a non-significant but positive trend between total daily dose of clozapine and clozapine level. 32% of clozapine levels returned were higher than the recommended level. We would recommend as suggested in the guidelines from MHRA, clozapine plasma levels should be monitored in certain clinical situations with increased toxicity risk. Trough levels should be taken with records of time of previous dose taken. Limitations of this study included a small sample size (41 patients) with data collection reliant on electronic systems. It was unclear if these results represent trough levels, making values difficult to interpret. Multifactorial impact on clozapine metabolism causes wide patient variability in plasma levels.