Administration Of Pro Re Nata Medication Research Articles

Use of a Novel Standardized Administration Protocol Reduces Agitation Pro Re Nata (PRN) Medication Requirements: The Birmingham Agitation Management (BAM) Initiative.

Agitation management is a principal challenge on inpatient psychiatric units. Overreliance on common prescribing strategies of pro re nata (PRN) medication administration is problematic, given the tendencies to have overlapping or unclear indications. Piloted project to determine whether a standardized protocol for agitation intervention may reduce PRN medication administration. The Birmingham Agitation Management (BAM) interdisciplinary team uniquely connected the Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC) for assessment of agitation severity to a standardized PRN medication order set. Nurses on the piloted unit were trained on how to score the BVC and administer medications. Patients were assessed by the BVC every 4 hours and, based on their score, would receive no medication, low-dose benzodiazepine, high-dose benzodiazepine, or high-dose benzodiazepine plus antipsychotic. The primary end point compared the number of PRNs administered after novel protocol implementation with a retrospective cohort. Secondary measures included analysis of medication-related effects, seclusion, and physical restraint rates. 377 patients were included in the final analyses (184 pre-BAM, 193 BAM intervention group). No significant differences were seen in patient characteristics between groups. The total number of PRNs administered decreased by 42.5%, with both the mean and median number of administrations decreasing significantly (95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.68-5.75]; P < 0.001). A trend was noted between the number of PRNs administered and seclusion rates, but did not reach statistical significance (95% CI = [-7.28 to 60.31]; P = 0.124). In seemingly the first initiative of its kind, we found that a standardized agitation management protocol can help decrease the total number of PRN administrations for agitation without worsening of restraint rates and may possibly reduce the risk of adverse effects. These results require validation in specific, larger populations.

Trajectories of pro re nata (PRN) medication prescribing and administration in long-term care facilities.

Little is known about changes in pro re nata (PRN) medication prescribing and administration in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) over time. To determine the prevalence and factors associated with PRN medication administration in RACFs and examine changes over 12-months. Secondary analyses utilizing data from the SIMPLER randomized controlled trial (n=242 residents, 8 RACFs) was undertaken. PRN medication data were extracted from RACF medication charts. Factors associated with PRN medication administration in the preceding week were explored using multivariable logistic regression. At baseline, 211 residents (87.2%) were prescribed ≥1PRN medication, with 77 (36.5%) administered PRN medication in the preceding week. PRN administration was more likely in non-metropolitan areas, and less likely among residents with more severe dementia symptoms and greater dependence with activities of daily living. No significant differences in overall PRN prescribing or administration in 162 residents alive at 12-month follow-up were observed. Despite being frequently prescribed, the contribution of PRNs to overall medication use in RACFs is small. PRN prescribing and administration was relatively static over 12-months despite likely changes in resident health status over this period, suggesting further exploration of PRN prescribing in relation to resident care needs may be warranted.

Rates of PRN Medication Administration in Australian Residential Aged Care

ObjectiveTo investigate administration of pro re nata (PRN) medications and nurse-initiated medications (NIMs) in Australian aged care services over a 12-month period. DesignTwelve-month longitudinal audit of medication administrations. Setting and participantsThree hundred ninety-two residents of 10 aged care services in regional Victoria, Australia. MethodsRecords of PRN and NIM administration were extracted from electronic and hard copy medication charts. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate medication administration per person-month. Poisson regression was used to estimate predictors of PRN administration. ResultsOver a median follow-up of 12 months (interquartile range 10–12 months), 93% of residents were administered a PRN medication and 41% of residents an NIM on 21,147 and 552 occasions, respectively. The mean number of any PRN administration was 5.85 per person-month. The most frequently administered PRN medications per person-month were opioids 1.54, laxatives 0.96, benzodiazepines 0.72, antipsychotics 0.48, paracetamol 0.46, and topical preparations 0.42. Three-quarters of residents prescribed a PRN opioid or PRN benzodiazepine and two-thirds of residents prescribed a PRN antipsychotic had the medication administered on 1 or more occasions over the follow-up. Conclusions and ImplicationsMost residents were administered PRN medications. Administration was in line with Australian regulations and institutional protocols. However, the high frequency of PRN analgesic, laxative, and psychotropic medication administration highlights the need for regular clinical review to ensure ongoing safe and appropriate use.

Pro Re Nata Medication Use in Acute Care Adolescent Psychiatric Unit.

Objective: Evidence to support the use of pro re nata (PRN) medication is limited, and the details of PRN use (indication, frequency of administration, patient characteristics) are rarely reported, particularly in youth populations. The goal of this study was to report on the pattern of PRN use over 6 years in an acute care psychiatric unit for adolescents. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients' records from November 2012 to October 2018 was conducted. Variables extracted from electronic medical records included age, gender, race/ethnicity, clinical rating scores at admission (on a subset of patients), length of stay, psychotropic and nonpsychotropic PRN medication administration, timing of administration, discharge diagnosis, and discharge medication. Results: Records from 2961 individuals with a total 3937 admissions were analyzed. A total of 62% of admissions had at least one PRN medication administration. Severity of symptoms, as indicated by higher scores on clinical rating scales at admission, longer length of stay, and readmission were related to high PRN use. Patients with bipolar spectrum disorders received more psychotropic and nonpsychotropic PRN medications than other patients. Patients who were high psychotropic PRN users were also high nonpsychotropic PRN users. Conclusion: Despite the lack of clear evidence in support of the efficacy of PRN medications, they commonly used to control symptoms in acute care inpatient settings. Youth with severe symptoms utilized not only psychotropic PRN medication but also nonpsychotropic PRN more frequently, suggesting a possible role of systemic disorder among youth with serious mental illness. More research is necessary to examine the efficacy of PRN medications for managing targeted symptoms.

The Administration of Pro re nata Medication by Mental Health Nurses: A Thematic Analysis

Pro re nata (PRN) medication is medication administered by nurses as required commonly in response to a patient’s symptoms or behaviour including insomnia, agitation or anxiety. There is a paucity of research around the process of PRN administration in mental health settings in Ireland and international evidence suggests inconsistencies in practices. This study aimed to explore the process of PRN medication administration by mental health nurses. Using a qualitative descriptive design, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 19 mental health nurses in three acute inpatient units in one mental health service in Ireland. Most participants reported undertaking an assessment of the patient before administering PRN medication; however, many also reported having observed incidents of poor practice. There was evidence of some interdisciplinary sensitivities around instructions regarding the use of PRN medications between doctors who prescribed them and nurses who dispensed them. A need for service improvements were also identified including the use of alternative strategies to PRN use such as de-escalation techniques and education around psychopharmacology. PRN medication is commonly used in mental health settings; however, this study suggests that there is potential for improvement in relation to how it is prescribed and administered. Overuse of PRN medication has been associated with increased morbidity. Mental health nurses are required to carefully consider whether PRN medication is warranted in the first instance and how its use might impact on patients.

Documentation of psychotropic pro re nata medication administration: An evaluation of electronic health records compared with paper charts and verbal reports.

To describe the documentation of pro re nata (PRN) medication for anxiety and to compare documentation at two hospitals providing similar psychiatric services, one that used paper charts and another that used an electronic health record (EHR). We also assessed congruence between nursing documentation and verbal reports from staff about the PRN administration process. The ability to accurately document patients' symptoms and the care given is considered a core competency of the nursing profession (Wilkinson, Nursing process and critical thinking, Saddle River, 2007); however, researchers have found poor concordance between nursing notes and verbal reports or observations of events (e.g., Marinis etal., 2010, J Clin Nurs, 19, 1544-1552) and considerable information missing (e.g., Marinis etal., 2010, J Clin Nurs, 19, 1544-1552). Additionally, the administration of PRN medication has consistently been noted to be poorly documented (e.g., Baker etal., 2008, J Clin Nurs, 17, 1122-1131). The project was a mixed-method, two-phase study that collected data from two sites. In phase 1, nursing documentation of PRN medication administrations was reviewed in patient charts; phase 2 included verbal reports from staff about this practice. Nurses using EHR documented more information than those using paper charts, including the reason for PRN administration, who initiated the administration, and effectiveness. There were some differences between written and verbal reports, including whether potential side effects were explained to patients prior to PRN administration. We continue the calls for attention to be paid to improving the quality of nursing documentation. Our results support the shift to using EHR, yet not relying on this method completely to ensure comprehensiveness of documentation. Efforts to address the quality of documentation, particularly for PRN administration, are needed. This could be made through training, using structured report templates and by switching to electronic databases.

Inpatient Pain Medication Administration: Understanding the Process and Its Delays

BackgroundA patient's impression of quality of care is strongly influenced by pain management. Materials and methodsWe sought to understand the process of pro re nata (PRN) pain medication administration through direct observation and use of timestamped data from the electronic medical record (EMR). The total time from nurse notification to administration was compared between PRN narcotics, non-narcotic pain, and nonpain medications. ResultsWe noted two pathways: patient-initiated requests and nurses preemptively asking about pain. We observed 44 instances of PRN medication administration (33 narcotics, 5 non-narcotics, 6 nonpain). Patients waited a median of 14.5 min for all PRN medications, interquartile range 6.5, 36. There was no significant difference in times for the patient-initiated pathway (n = 39, median 15 min, [7, 40]) compared to preemptive rounding (n = 5, 10 min [5, 30]), P = 0.88. Narcotics (median 14 min, [5, 30]) did not take longer than non-narcotic (11, [10, 88]) or nonpain medications (19.5, [11, 40]), P = 0.75. Electronic medical record data included only the time from medication retrieval to administration, which took approximately 5 min for all medications. ConclusionsMedication administration is complex, comprising multiple vital steps. The findings of this study suggest opportunities for process improvement that may enhance the experience and overall satisfaction of the surgical patient.

Frequency of and factors related to pro re nata (PRN) medication use in aged care services

Little is known about the contribution of 'pro re nata' (PRN) medications to overall medication burden in residential aged care services (RACS). To determine the frequency of, and factors associated with PRN medication administration in RACS. Details of all medications charted for regular or PRN use were extracted from medication charts for 383 residents of 6 Australian RACS. Records of medications administered over a 7 day period were also extracted. Factors associated with PRN medication administration among residents charted ≥1 PRN were determined using multivariate logistic regression. Of the 360 (94%) residents charted ≥1 PRN medication, 99 (28%) were administered PRN medication at least once. The most prevalent PRN medications were analgesics and laxatives. Residents with greater dependence with activities of daily living (ADL) (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) per additional point on Katz ADL scale: 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.89; p<0.001) and a greater number of regular medications (aOR per additional medication: 1.06; 95% CI 1.00-1.13; p=0.042) were more likely to be administered PRN medication. Although most residents are charted PRN medications, rates of administration are relatively low, suggesting the contribution of PRNs to medication burden in RACS may be lower than previously thought.

PRN Medication Administration in a Geriatric Psychiatric Hospital: Chart Review and Nursing Perspective

ABSTRACTObjective: To improve patient care/outcome, an evaluation was conducted of nursing procedures and protocols for pro re nata (PRN) medications.Methods: A 14-day chart review was conducted for 27 patients with mood and thought disorders (MTD) and for 24 patients with organic disorders (OD) at a geriatric psychiatric hospital, and a questionnaire was completed by 20 nurses.Results: 377 PRNs were administered to patients in the MTD and OD units (240 and 137, respectively). The majority of PRNs were administered during the evening shifts on the MTD unit and during the day shifts on the OD unit. Chart notes indicated the behavior requiring PRN administration was not always specifically described and therapeutic interventions were not often attempted before PRN administration. Inconsistency between chart notes and medication record books was noted in the majority of cases. It was often not known whether the PRN was initiated by the staff, patient, or family. PRNs were reported to be not effective in the majority of cases.Conclusions: Documentation was suboptimal and effectiveness was poor.Clinical Implications: It would be worthwhile to train all staff in a patient-centered or ecopsychosocial (i.e., non-pharmacological) model of care, which would provide staff alternatives to PRNs. In that context, it would be important to implement standards of practice into geriatric psychiatry inpatient settings for PRN administration and documentation.

Descriptive analysis of pro re nata medication use at a Canadian psychiatric hospital.

Pro re nata (PRN), a Latin phrase meaning 'as needed', is used to describe medications that might be used in specific situations, in addition to regularly-scheduled medications, such as when a patient is particularly anxious, experiencing insomnia, or suffering pain. While helpful in some circumstances, PRN are associated with an increased risk of morbidity, overuse, dependence, and polypharmacy. There is also a dearth of medical literature describing current practices and trends of PRN administration in mental health facilities, especially in Canada, and the literature that does exist is limited by poor documentation practices. Therefore, the primary objective of the current study was to understand the reason (purpose), frequency, use, documentation practices, and outcome (i.e. effectiveness, side-effects) of PRN medication use on inpatient units. Data were pulled to capture a snapshot of PRN administrations over a 3-month period, and included information related to the administration of the PRN medication, such as time of administration, type and dose of PRN medication, and prescribed indication, as well as patient-specific information. Results indicated that approximately 8200 psychotropic PRN medications were administered during the designated 3-month time period, and over 90% of patients received at least one PRN. Most of these were benzodiazepines, followed by antipsychotics. Further analyses were conducted to determine other characteristics of PRN use patterns and to provide a baseline of understanding that will inform future research to investigate the practice of PRN administration to psychiatric inpatients.

The experiences of mental health professionals' and patients' use of pro re nata (PRN) medication in acute adult mental health care settings: a systematic review protocol of qualitative evidence

The experiences of mental health professionals' and patients' use of pro re nata (PRN) medication in acute adult mental health care settings: a systematic review protocol of qualitative evidence

The administration of ‘as required’ sedative medication at a secure psychiatric hospital

Relatively little research has been conducted into the use of pro re nata (PRN) medication in psychiatry. This article describes the frequency, nature and reasons for the administration of sedative PRN medication among inpatients at a secure psychiatric hospital and audits its documentation against good practice standards. Medication charts and case notes were scrutinised for doses of PRN medication administered in the previous 14 days. A total of 344 patients were studied. Thirty-four percent had received PRN medication in the previous fortnight. Most of the 618 doses (93%) were administered orally and none were described as rapid tranquillisation. There was no evidence of physical monitoring following PRN administration. Case note documentation was patchy, with no mention was made of side effects and in just 40% was the reason for using PRN recorded. In only 31% of instances was the outcome documented. PRN medication was commonly administered but poorly documented. Nursing staff need reminding that good case note documentation is important both clinically and for medicolegal reasons when administering sedative medication to patients.

Patients' views and experiences of pro re nata medication in acute mental health settings

In the present study, we interviewed 40 patients in acute inpatient mental health settings regarding their experience of, and views about, receiving pro re nata (PRN) medication. Patient requests for PRN were primarily to relieve anxiety or to aid sleep, and the majority of the participants (80%) could describe a situation where this medication was very helpful. From the perspective of patients, interactions surrounding the immediate administration of PRN medication were inadequate, in that half of the interviewees were simply told to take the medication, and three-quarters said that, in their experience, formal consent was not commonly sought. Three-quarters of respondents came up with alternatives to PRN, and half wanted more information about the medication itself. These findings could contribute to improved nursing assessment for PRN medication need, administration, and monitoring.

Understanding clinical decision making for PRN medication in mental health inpatient facilities

digitalData = {"site":{"ip":"181.215.19.225","environment":"LIVE","website":"onlinelibrary.wiley.com","websiteCode":"pericles","serverDate":"2022-10-01"},"identities":[{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"b238ab85-6bb4-49e4-84ca-a0d9f3ee5a35"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"eabce89b-65c2-4a09-ab7c-bd2b3fea2f10"},{"type":"RegionUser","uuid":"3c5060a1-6620-438f-862b-902a4d4cd4ac"},{"type":"RegionUser","uuid":"7c2346ab-ef47-431b-b2d5-1f6188c49941"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"a86d27d2-6bcd-4b94-bca5-fe16f4882855"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"da88d808-3f7b-4bde-9210-10862b6d121b"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"8c72a733-117a-4bc9-a682-13475f13e6a3"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"756fc162-8722-461f-a077-ebffec4f4fae"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"cf9c85b9-7f3b-4309-aeaa-c41669cabe3b"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"db8b8d10-1aed-4809-b3ee-70938c569014"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"cdce41c2-a8de-4a64-a4d9-a85caaaa2314"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"7a2a316d-5a37-4ccd-afdb-737bfb863a48"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"39f911ce-44b6-4dba-9978-8b2e947a8eb0"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"97587ffd-dcb4-4cb5-9986-a8ce611532bd"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"a46a154d-979f-41ba-b459-fd34df5c071f"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"b7acda8c-ce18-451b-a68d-e14b72f9b5b8"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"055a2bdd-861f-4fa7-bd49-9773db7e0e3e"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"b2dbfe27-ecae-4bb6-bb0d-d75e5caa3762"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"1a6297fb-6679-4882-a4c2-fdd124624edf"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"8032f17e-5050-4fb4-9c40-e1f6875d5c2b"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"ab743440-628f-4964-9216-9983ad3beadf"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"a4187e00-f28e-4754-9a0f-1eb306fb0679"}],"publication":{"item":{"title":"Understanding clinical decision making for PRN medication in mental health inpatient facilities","doi":"10.1111/j.1365-2850.2010.01565.x","access":"no","earliestDate":"2010-07-04","formats":["Cited by","First page image","Full text","PDF","References"],"topics":[{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"NURSING & MIDWIFERY","topicUri":"nu"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"MEDICAL SCIENCE","topicUri":"md"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Mental Health","topicUri":"he70"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Clinical Specialties","topicUri":"nu90"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"HEALTH & HEALTH CARE","topicUri":"he"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Mental Health Nursing","topicUri":"nua0"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"General & Introductory Medical Science","topicUri":"md00"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Nursing General","topicUri":"nu00"}]},"group":{"title":"","doi":"10.1111/jpm.2010.17.issue-6","access":"no","volume":"17","issue":"6","coverDate":"2010-08-01","topics":[{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"NURSING & MIDWIFERY","topicUri":"nu"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"MEDICAL SCIENCE","topicUri":"md"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Mental Health","topicUri":"he70"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Clinical Specialties","topicUri":"nu90"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"HEALTH & HEALTH CARE","topicUri":"he"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Mental Health Nursing","topicUri":"nua0"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"General & Introductory Medical Science","topicUri":"md00"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Nursing General","topicUri":"nu00"}]},"series":{"title":"Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing","doi":"10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2850","access":"no","code":"13652850","issn":"1351-0126","eissn":"1365-2850","topics":[{"taxonomyUri":"gpt-sitename","topicLabel":"wly.nursing_000088","topicUri":"wly.nursing_000088"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"MEDICAL SCIENCE","topicUri":"md"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Mental Health","topicUri":"he70"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"General & Introductory Medical Science","topicUri":"md00"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Clinical Specialties","topicUri":"nu90"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"HEALTH & HEALTH CARE","topicUri":"he"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Nursing General","topicUri":"nu00"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Mental Health Nursing","topicUri":"nua0"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"NURSING & MIDWIFERY","topicUri":"nu"},{"taxonomyUri":"gpt-zonename","topicLabel":"j-psychi-mental-hlth-nurs_JPM","topicUri":"j-psychi-mental-hlth-nurs_jpm"}]}},"page":{"subPage":"Abstract","page":"Article/Chapter View","pageGroup":"Publication Pages","title":"title","errorCode":200}}

Pro re nata medication for psychoses: an audit of practice in two metropolitan hospitals.

To examine the use of pro re nata (PRN) (as needed) medication in hospitalized patients with psychotic disorders. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted at two large public psychiatry units situated in inner city general hospitals. Pro re nata medication prescription, administration and outcomes were examined during inpatient episodes of care for 184 consecutive admissions of patients diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. Patient demographics, diagnoses, and regularly prescribed medication were also recorded. All admissions were drawn from a three-month period from December 1998-February 1999. The most prevalent diagnoses were schizophrenia related disorders (n = 111) and mania (n = 34). Substance use disorders (n = 49) were the most common comorbid dis-orders. Pro re nata medication was administered during the acute phase of 82% of admissions. Drugs prescribed Pro re nata were mostly typical antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and/or anti-cholinergics. Coprescription of typical antipsychotics PRN with regularly scheduled atypical antipsychotics was common (64%). Pro re nata medications accounted for 31% of the total antipsychotic dose and 28% of the total anxiolytic dose administered during acute treatment. Higher daily doses of PRN medication were given to manic patients, males, younger patients and those with substance use disorders. Pro re nata prescriptions usually specified a maximum daily dose (87%) but rarely gave indications for use (6%). Administration records frequently lacked a specified reason for use (48%) or a notation of outcome (64%). Unit staff noted medication-related morbidity in 37% of patients receiving PRN medication, compared to 3% of patients receiving only regularly scheduled medication. Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were most frequently associated with administration of PRN haloperidol (Relative Risk vs other PRN medications = 5.61, 95% CI = 2.36-13.73). Pro re nata medications comprised a significant part of the treatment which psychotic patients received. The common practice of coprescribing PRN typical antipsychotics with scheduled atypical antipsychotics is potentially problematical since administration of PRN medication is associated with significant medication related morbidity. Preferential use of benzodiazepines as PRN agents may minimize this morbidity and foster subsequent compliance with regularly prescribed antipsychotics.