Abstract
AimsQuetiapine is an atypical anti-psychotic medication licensed for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and adjunctive use in major depressive disorder. It's off-label use in low doses is increasing, possibly due to its sedative qualities, tolerability, low risk of extrapyramidal symptoms and to limit the unnecessary use of benzodiazepines. However, previous research highlights the risk of metabolic consequences even in low doses. Our aim is to establish the prescribing patterns and off-label use of quetiapine within a complete comminity mental health team population (CMHT).MethodThe GR1 CMHT provides care to a population of 25,000 people in a mixed urban and rural area. Multi-disciplinary case notes for all registered patients were reviewed for a one-year period. A database was created to include sociodemographic details, diagnosis, and medication. The proportion of patients prescribed quetiapine was identified and the dosage divided into multiple increments. The team's consultant reviewed and verified all ICD-10 diagnoses. Quetiapine dose by diagnosis was examined using descriptive statistics.ResultOf 246 registered patients, 62 (25% of CMHT caseload) were prescribed Quetiapine. Quetiapine was prescribed across a range of disorders including psychotic 17 (27%), mood 18 (29%), anxiety 14 (22 %), personality disorders 11 (18%) and others 2 (3%). Doses spanned between 25 mg – 800 mg daily. 19 patients (31%) were prescribed less than 25 mg, 20 patients (32%) between 25 mg and 100 mg and 23 patients (37%) above 100 mg. In psychotic and mood disorders, dosage varied widely between the low and high range. Furthermore, of the psychotic disorders, 11 (65%) were prescribed a second antipsychotic medication. For diagnoses in which the prescribing indication was clearly off-label, the dosages were predominantly low (100 mg or less).ConclusionQuetiapine was commonly prescribed in our patient population. Its frequent off-label use in low doses suggests that its prescription was for its additional qualities. Our findings highlight the importance of assessing the risk-benefit profile for every patient given the potential side effects, involving patients in the consultation of its off-label use and appropriate monitoring.
Highlights
We surveyed the health care professionals (HCPs) from the team and observed a high level of confidence in discussing sexual dysfunction and high self report of this discussion being conducted
Our audit results show no records of the discussion of sexual dysfunction, we held to the principal that in absence of record the discussion did not take place
Our survey results suggested that HCPs were confident they do assess for sexual dysfunction
Summary
We surveyed the HCPs from the team and observed a high level of confidence in discussing sexual dysfunction and high self report of this discussion being conducted. Our audit results show no records of the discussion of sexual dysfunction, we held to the principal that in absence of record the discussion did not take place. Our survey results suggested that HCPs were confident they do assess for sexual dysfunction.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
