EHospitals and Parkinson’s disease care: audit insights from an EPIC-integrated Hospital

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative condition that affects approximately 145,000 individuals in the UK. PD symptoms are managed primarily through medications such as levodopa and dopamine agonists. Delays or omissions in administering these medications is the primary reason for increased length of stay in up to 73% of emergency admissions.1 This audit investigated the management of PD medications at Cambridge University Hospitals to identify areas for improvement in clinical practice. Aim This audit aimed to evaluate the pharmacological management of PD patients admitted to Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust. Specifically, it sought to assess the accuracy of drug histories, the quality of medication administration, and adherence to standards set by Parkinson’s UK ‘Get it on Time’ campaign and NICE.2,3 Methods A cross-sectional audit was conducted, reviewing the records of PD patients admitted over a three-month period. The sample included patients with a confirmed diagnosis of idiopathic PD who were prescribed at least one PD medication. Data were collected retrospectively from the electronic patient records, focusing on ten performance standards. Ethical approval was not required as the study involved a retrospective review of existing clinical records. Results The audit included 63 admissions, predominantly male (65%) with a mean age of 78.5 years. A significant portion of patients (81%) had their drug histories completed by a doctor after clerking, and 90% had orders for their regular treatment generated immediately post-clerking. Pharmacy staff completed drug histories within 24 hours for 81% of patients, though discrepancies between medical and pharmacy histories were noted in 70% of cases. Medication reconciliation within 24 hours was achieved for 83% of patients, yet only 29% received their PD medications on time for every dose. Additionally, 76% did not miss a dose or had a valid reason recorded for missed doses. 83% had PD listed in their electronic problem list after clerking. Alarmingly, just 5% were assessed for Self-Administration of Medicines (SAM), and 76% were assessed by a PD specialist during their stay. Discussion and conclusion The audit revealed substantial gaps in PD medication management, particularly regarding discrepancies between medical and pharmacy drug histories and delays in medication administration. The low rate of SAM assessments and inconsistent PD specialist consultations were also significant concerns. These findings highlight the need for improved documentation practices, such as standardized templates within the EPIC system, and increased pharmacy involvement during early stages of admission. Appropriate staffing levels and better interdisciplinary coordination are essential. The audit identified critical areas for improvement, emphasizing the need for better documentation, timely administration, and enhanced interdisciplinary coordination. Future audits should aim to randomize patient selection over a longer period to minimize bias and provide a more comprehensive assessment of medication management practices. The audit was limited by its retrospective design and the specific three-month timeframe, which may not fully represent broader trends. The exclusion of admissions shorter than 24 hours and the focus on a single hospital trust also limit the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should consider a larger, more randomized sample to validate and expand upon these results.