ctg small logo      POMH small logo

Improving  the screening  rates for the metabolic side effects of antipsychotic drugs for those living in the community

Background


The Prescribing Observatory for Mental Health (POMH) is a network of  psychiatrists, pharmacists and nurses who take a lead on medicines management within mental health services.  The network coordinates a programme of topic-based clinical audits looking at prescribing practice.  The topics are selected because there is evidence of substantial variation both with regard to the gap between actual practice and best practice as defined by guidelines and with regard practice between different mental health services.

 

The chosen topic for this improvement work was the management of metabolic side effects for those on antipsychotic medication in the community.

 

Life expectancy for people with schizophrenia is reduced by approximately 15 years (similar to people with diabetes).  This is mainly due to an increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease (Brown, 1997).  This risk is exacerbated by the adverse effects of medication used to treat the condition.  Good prescribing practice and, in particular early recognition and treatment of high blood lipid levels and hypertension (raised blood pressure) can reduce mortality, as can health promotion advice focusing on diet, exercise and smoking.

 

The overall aim for this improvement work was to increase the levels of screening for the metabolic side effects of antipsychotic medication prescribed to those living in the community.  These metabolic side effect screening checks include raised blood pressure (BP), obesity/body mass index (BMI), raised glucose and raised lipid levels.  This would be achieved by supporting front line teams to test changes linked to their systems for monitoring physical healthcare and metabolic side effects in people who are prescribed antipsychotic drugs.

 

POMH recommended this as an area for the CTG team to work on with member teams as it has been subject to five national audit cycles and seemed to be an area of practice that was difficult to change:  between the baseline audit (2006) and the most recent re-audit (2010), participating trusts demonstrated an overall increase in the proportion of patients with all four measures of metabolic side effects documented from 11% to 24%.

 

The Improvement Project


Recruiting teams

The CTG team needed to recruit between four and six teams.  The POMH team identified a number of trusts who had taken part in the most recent cycle of the audit who would be suitable to take part in the project: invitations were sent out at the end of June 2010; by mid July, four teams had taken up the invitation - three Assertive Outreach Teams (AOT) and one Recovery Team.

 

A ‘Project Management Pack’ was developed and sent to teams giving them detailed information and guidance about what the work would entail, including advice about the composition of their local CTG project team.

Visits

The CTG team visited the potential participating teams in August and early September 2010.  These visits were designed to meet the teams and get an idea of their local context, introduce the improvement approach that was being used, and get formal ‘sign up’ to the 10-month project.

The project activities

The teams were brought together into a ‘collaborative’ which worked together on the chosen topic between October 2010 and July 2011.  During this 10-month period, the teams came together for four learning events.  Each learning event was followed by a 3-month action period where teams carried out small ‘Plan Do Study Act’ (PDSA) cycles and collected simple on-going progress measures.  During the action periods, the CTG team hosted monthly teleconferences to review progress, discuss challenges, and agree ways forward.  Additional on-site support visits by a member of the CTG team were also available by arrangement. 

Feedback from participating teams


At the end of the 10-month programme of work, the CTG team asked the participating teams for feedback about various aspects of the content and delivery of the project.

 

Working with ‘the Model’: while most of the teams found the ‘Model for Improvement  itself accessible and easy to use, they reported that the associated processes and the paperwork took time to get used to.  

 

Supports from the CTG team: the learning events were rated highly, with an average score of 8/10, while the monthly teleconferences received an average response of only 5 out of 10.  The additional comments indicated that teams valued the chance to work collaboratively, share ideas with other teams, as well as the opportunity to work as a team with a shared focus.

 

Willingness to continue work beyond the 10-month project: the responses indicated a strong likelihood that teams would continue to test changes and collect measures to assess their continued progress towards their aim.  The feedback also indicated that team members would be likely to use the Model again on another topic, encourage others in their trusts to use the Model, or become involved in a ‘Closing the Gap’ project in the future.

 

Where next...


Please follow the links below to find out about the successes and challenges our teams faced and the changes that they put in place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Closing the Gap, 4th Floor Standon House, Mansell Street, London, E1 8AA    

Tel: 020 7977 6686   Fax: 020 7481 4831   

Email: sholder@cru.rcpsych.ac.uk

 

 

 

 

© 2012 Royal College of Psychiatrists