4.6 Article

Screening for the metabolic side effects of antipsychotic medication: findings of a 6-year quality improvement programme in the UK

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 5, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007633

关键词

AUDIT

资金

  1. Health Foundation, under its 'Engaging with Quality' initiative
  2. mental health NHS Trusts

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To increase the frequency and quality of screening for the metabolic syndrome in people prescribed continuing antipsychotic medication. Design An audit-based, quality improvement programme (QIP) with customised feedback to participating mental health services after each audit, including benchmarked data on their relative and absolute performance against an evidence-based practice standard and the provision of bespoke change interventions. Setting Adult, assertive outreach, community psychiatric services in the UK. Participants 6 audits were conducted between 2006 and 2012. 21 mental health Trusts participated in the baseline audit in 2006, submitting data on screening for 1966 patients, while 32 Trusts participated in the 2012 audit, submitting data on 1591 patients. Results Over the 6years of the programme, there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients for whom measures for all 4 aspects of the metabolic syndrome had been documented in the clinical records in the previous year, from just over 1 in 10 patients in 2006 to just over 1 in 3 by 2012. The proportion of patients with no evidence of any screening fell from almost 1/2 to 1 in 7 patients over the same period. Conclusions The findings suggest that audit-based QIPs can help improve clinical practice in relation to physical healthcare screening. Nevertheless, they also reveal that only a minority of community psychiatric patients prescribed antipsychotic medication is screened for the metabolic syndrome in accordance with best practice recommendations, and therefore potentially remediable causes of poor physical health remain undetected and untreated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据