Rapid Tranquillisation Research Articles

Changing prescribing practice for rapid tranquillization-a quality improvement project based on the Plan-Do-Study-Act method.

It is unclear how the evidence from clinical trials best translates into complex clinical settings. The aim of this quality improvement (QI) project was to change prescribing practice for rapid tranquillization in inpatient mental health care services examining the effectiveness of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) method. A prospective QI project was conducted to ensure that intramuscular (IM) diazepam was substituted with IM lorazepam for benzodiazepine rapid tranquillization in inpatient mental health care. We monitored the prescription and administration of medication for rapid tranquillization before (N = 371), during (N = 1130) and after (N = 364) the QI intervention. Seven iterative PDSA cycles with a multiple-component intervention approach were conducted to gradually turn the prescribing practice in the desired direction. Simultaneously, a standard monitoring regimen was introduced to ensure patient safety. Lorazepam administrations gradually replaced diazepam during the intervention period which was sustained post-intervention where lorazepam comprised 96% of benzodiazepine administrations for rapid tranquillization. The mean dose of benzodiazepine administered remained stable from pre (14.40mg diazepam equivalents) to post (14.61mg) intervention phase. Close to full compliance (> 80%) with vital signs monitoring was achieved by the end of the observation period. It was possible to increase the quality of treatment of acute agitation in a large inpatient mental health care setting using a stepwise approach based on iterative PDSA cycles and continuous data feedback. This approach might be valuable in other prescribing practice scenarios with feedback from local stakeholders and opinion leaders.

Ethnic disparities in the use of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings: a scoping review.

To identify and summarise extant knowledge about patient ethnicity and the use of various types of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings. A scoping review methodological framework recommended by the JBI was used. A systematic search was conducted in APA PsycINFO, CINAHL with Full Text, Embase, PubMed and Scopus. Additionally, grey literature searches were conducted in Google, OpenGrey and selected websites, and the reference lists of included studies were explored. Altogether, 38 studies were included: 34 were primary studies; 4, reviews. The geographical settings were as follows: Europe (n = 26), Western Pacific (n = 8), Americas (n = 3) and South-East Asia (n = 1). In primary studies, ethnicity was reported according to migrant/national status (n = 16), mixed categories (n = 12), indigenous vs. non-indigenous (n = 5), region of origin (n = 1), sub-categories of indigenous people (n = 1) and religion (n = 1). In reviews, ethnicity was not comparable. The categories of restrictive practices included seclusion, which was widely reported across the studies (n = 20), multiple restrictive practices studied concurrently (n = 17), mechanical restraint (n = 8), rapid tranquillisation (n = 7) and manual restraint (n = 1). Ethnic disparities in restrictive practice use in adult mental health inpatient settings has received some scholarly attention. Evidence suggests that certain ethnic minorities were more likely to experience restrictive practices than other groups. However, extant research was characterised by a lack of consensus and continuity. Furthermore, widely different definitions of ethnicity and restrictive practices were used, which hampers researchers' and clinicians' understanding of the issue. Further research in this field may improve mental health practice.

Non-contact Health Monitoring to Support Care in a Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit

Objective: Psychiatric intensive care units provide care to patients with severe mental health disorders, often associated with violence and aggression which may result in the administration of rapid tranquillisation (RT). Novel technologies may support staff in monitoring patient safety and intervening proactively to prevent assaults and RT. The objective of this single-centre pragmatic study was to assess the effect of clinical teams augmenting their existing clinical practices with a contact-free vision-based patient monitoring system on the number of assaults and RT events. Method: The number of incidents of assaults, and the associated use of RT, was examined before and after the introduction of a contact-free vision-based patient monitoring system in a male psychiatric intensive care unit. Staff surveys and interviews were undertaken to assess usability and acceptability of the system. Results: There was a 37% reduction in assaults across the wards with 26% reduction in bedroom assaults. There was a 40% reduction in RT episodes related to assaults. Staff reported that they felt confident in monitoring the physical signs and health of patients remotely with the contact-free vision-based patient monitoring system to support them. Conclusion: The results suggest that the contact-free vision-based patient monitoring system helped staff to reduce incidents of assaults and associated RT administration. Staff surveys and interviews showed the ways in which their use of this technology had supported them in physical health monitoring.

Fifty years of experience with loxapine for the rapid non-coercive tranquilization of acute behavioral disturbances in schizophrenia patients, and beyond

Introduction Acute behavioral disturbances in psychosis, including agitation, comprise a heterogeneous group of manifestations varying in intensity and duration they last for. They require rapid, non-coercive treatments ranging from verbal de-escalation to the calming effect of pharmacological agents. The treatment goals are reduction of patient suffering and prevention of disease deterioration. Stabilizing rather than sedating is preferred to ensure improved compliance and a stronger therapeutic alliance. Furthermore, animal pharmacology and clinical studies on agitation reveal the robust calming and anxiolytic properties of loxapine. Areas covered This review covers the pharmacological and clinical history of loxapine along with research developments. It emphasizes the advantages of its multiple formulations ranging from injectable forms and tablets to orally inhaled forms to attain rapid and fine-tuned tranquilization. Expert Opinion Rapid tranquillization is achieved within 2–6 hours using liquid orally-consumed loxapine, and within an hour or less with its IM or orally inhaled forms. Loxapine has been adopted in the management of a wide range of acute disturbances, such as agitation in psychosis. In the context of personalized medicine, key cellular and molecular elements of the schizophrenia phenotype were recently shown to be improved with loxapine.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Besylate versus Dexmedetomidine for Sedation in Non-Intubated Older Patients with Agitated Delirium After Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PurposeThe purpose of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate compared with dexmedetomidine for the relief of agitated delirium in non-intubated older patients after orthopedic surgery.Patients and methodsSeventy-five patients were randomly divided into two groups. Patients assigned to the remimazolam group received a loading dose of 0.075 mg/kg remimazolam besylate over 1 minute, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.1 to 0.3 mg/kg/h. Subjects randomized to the dexmedetomidine group received a loading infusion of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 minutes, followed by a maintenance dose of 0.2 to 0.7 μg/kg/h. Meanwhile, RASS score-guided dose titration was followed. To assess the efficacy of the study drugs in terms of time to resolution of agitation, time to first achievement of target sedation, percentage of time within the target sedation range, and time to delirium resolution. Safety of the sedatives was evaluated by adverse events during hospitalization.ResultsTime to resolution of agitation did not differ between the two groups. The time to first achievement of target sedation was 19.0 (9.5 to 31.0) minutes for remimazolam besylate vs 43.5 (15.0 to 142.5) minutes for dexmedetomidine (P < 0.001). Percentage of time within the target sedation range was 77.8% for remimazolam besylate-treated patients and 67.4% for dexmedetomidine-treated patients (P = 0.001). Patients in the remimazolam group had longer time to delirium resolution (29.5 [21.3 to 32.5] hours) than those in the dexmedetomidine group (22.8 [18.9 to 28.5] hours) (P = 0.042). Patients sedated with remimazolam besylate had more oversedation (P = 0.036) but less hypotension (P = 0.007).ConclusionCompared with dexmedetomidine, remimazolam besylate was equally effective in relieving agitation, and resulted in earlier achievement of sedation goal and more controllable sedation. Remimazolam may be an ideal agent for obtaining rapid tranquillisation.

"My life isn't my life, it's the systems": A qualitative exploration of women's experiences of day-to-day restrictive practices as inpatients.

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Sometimes someone needs to be in hospital because they are struggling with their mental health and need some extra support but being in hospital can also be a difficult experience. There are a lot of restrictions in place in hospital, like locked doors, rules to follow and not much choice about what happens to you. Other research has found that these restrictions can feel difficult and stressful for people and so more research is needed about this. We wanted to know what being in hospital felt like for women in particular. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: We interviewed women who were in hospital because of their mental health about what it was like for them in hospital. The women told us that they felt powerless while they were in hospital. They sometimes felt like they were being punished and this could affect their mood and could lead to them hurting themselves. They also said that they were not always listened to by staff, and they found it difficult being away from their family and friends while they were in hospital. The women also told us that being in hospital could sometimes help them to feel safe. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Women should be looked after in hospital in a way that helps them to feel in control of what happens to them. They should be supported to be able to go outside the hospital on leave, to keep in touch with their family and friends, and they should be listened to by staff. A project called "safewards" has suggested some ways for helping to make hospital wards safer. They have suggested that everyone should be clear about what the rules are when they go into hospital and ways that staff could communicate more clearly with the people they are working with. Our research supports using these techniques. ABSTRACT: Introduction Inpatient care often involves restrictive interventions such as seclusion and restraint and restrictive practices that limit the person's freedom, rights and daily activities. Restrictive practice has not been the explicit focus in previous research; however, it often appears as an important theme, with participants identifying it can have a detrimental effect on their well-being. More research specifically on this topic in an inpatient setting is, therefore, needed. Women might be particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of restrictive practices compared to men as women generally occupy less powerful positions in society and more often experience abuse. Aims The study aimed to explore women's experiences of routine restrictive practices in mental health inpatient settings. Methods Twenty-two women who were currently inpatients on mental health wards were interviewed about their experiences of restrictive practices in hospital. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Results An overarching theme emerged of powerlessness. Four key sub-themes were also identified: restrictions perceived as punitive, having no voice, impact of restrictions on relationships and restrictions providing safety and support. Discussion Although restrictive practices were found to provide the women with a sense of safety, they were also found to impact upon the women's well-being, leading to increases in self-harm and over-reliance on restrictions. Implications for practice This research highlights the importance of gender-informed inpatient services for women that foster independence, empowerment and allow women to have their voices heard. Safewards interventions such as clear mutual expectations and soft words could contribute to mitigating the impact of restrictive practices.

Rapid Tranquilisation Use in Working-Age Adult Inpatients

AimsThis study aimed to review if clinicians varied significantly in choosing rapid tranquillisation agents when using consistent clinical guidelines, analysing the rationale behind decision-making. It also aimed to assess confidence across varying grades and clinical experience, and to evaluate efficacy of current trust guidelines. We hypothesized that less experienced clinicians would be less willing to prescribe antipsychotics for rapid tranquillisation, and that current guidelines did not allow for consistent and uniform prescribing.MethodsA qualitative survey was distributed to 165 clinicians within one mental health trust, including core psychiatry trainees, trust-grade doctors, higher trainees, staff-grade doctors &amp; working-age adult consultants. This survey included a fictional but commonly occurring scenario which clinicians responded to with the aid of current trust guidance. Respondents were then asked to justify their choice and to rank their confidence in prescribing rapid tranquillisation, along with rating how useful the guideline was in aiding their decision. Thirty-six participants responded to this survey, with a response rate of around 22%. There was even representation across clinical grades.ResultsClinicians of all grades were equally willing to prescribe antipsychotic agents for rapid tranquillisation. Higher psychiatric trainees reported greatest self-confidence when prescribing tranquillisation, with consultants surprisingly lower in confidence. Intramuscular olanzapine was most favourable, but significant variability was observed in suggested management between clinicians. Main themes for suggested amendments to the guideline included clarity, when to use the various options, further specification on dosage ranges and options for specific instances, such as if a patient is antipsychotic naïve or there is minimal physical health information.There was marked variability in choice of agent. The majority of clinicians felt that early commencement of antipsychotic was beneficial in acutely unwell patients, although the merits of initially assessing medication-free were also raised. Key themes for tranquillisation choice included a need for a prior electrocardiogram to prescribe intramuscular haloperidol, the potential lack of efficacy with aripiprazole, the risk of respiratory depression with concurrent olanzapine and lorazepam, and a surprisingly high proportion of respondents opting for combined use of haloperidol plus a further sedative.ConclusionLess experienced clinicians were not found to lack confidence to prescribe antipsychotics for rapid tranquillisation. However, clinicians responding to the same clinical scenario using the same guideline resulted in marked variability in choosing rapid tranquillisation agents. This highlights a need for clearer guidelines and education on this matter to ensure a consistent treatment approach to tranquillising medication.

High Risk Care Plans in Liaison Psychiatry

AimsTo audit completed liaison service high risk care plans against local and national guidelines.MethodsSample comprised of a snapshot of all liaison patients currently on the case load on 14th December 2021. Electronic notes were reviewed to identify High Risk Care Plans (HRCPs) and audit completion against local guidance. Currently there is no national guidelines.In addition staff from the liaison team were surveyed to consider their confidence in completing HRCPs in order to direct staff training. Acute hospital staff were also surveyed to ascertain positive and negative aspects of the current HRCPs, in order to suggest quality improvements ahead of the upcoming integration of new Digital notes system.ResultsSample size 284. High Risk Care Plans completed 11, with an additional 2 required but not found in the notes.Non pharmacological deescalation advice was specified in only 2/11.Regular medication was documented in 5/11.Specialist rapid tranquillisation medication advice in 8/11.8/11 made reference to the local rapid tranquillisation policy, which was not made available in the notes.Absconsion risk is documented in 8/11 and advised level of observation 10/11.ConclusionAccording to local guidelines High Risk Care Plans were appropriate for 4.6% of the liaison case load, but record was included in the notes for 3.9%. Of those completed mandatory fields including non pharmacological deescalation and rapid tranquillisation advice were not always complete. Reference to rapid tranquillisation policy not immediately available in the notes is largely unhelpful in an emergency.Our local target is for 100% completion of appropriate high risk care plans and full documentation for each of the mandatory fields in the high risk care plan. Improved training and record keeping is required.Staff survey suggested unfamiliarity with document and unclear boundaries between standard and patient specific information impaired utility of high risk care plans. We recommend familiarising staff with the document and encourage highlighted font for key information.

Beyond “Evidence-Based Medicine” in “Detained Patients"

AimsTreatments without robust evidence are not recommended. However, some patients detained in secure hospitals might need novel approaches such as: off-license use of medication, use of psychological (rather than their biological) effects of drugs. In addition, some detained patients may request for unconventional treatments they believe in. In community and capacitous patients, the clinician's role is advisory and the burden is on the patient to make the final decision and access such treatments privately. However, in a detained patient (with or without capacity), it may fall on the Responsible Clinician (RC) to deny or facilitate access to such interventions. Currently, there is no guidance for such circumstances. We have presented three real cases followed by proposing a flowchart to guide RCs.MethodsCase 1 (2019–2020): X with mild Learning Disability (LD) and mixed personality disorder detained under Section 3 with no leave to community. X asked for Hypericum which has been helpful with her headaches in the past. X had capacity to make that decision.Case 2 (1996–97): Y with mild LD and aggressive behaviours responding instantly to any injection. Y lacked capacity so injections of distilled water was tried in his best interest, with equal positive effect. The question was about using distilled water as rapid tranquilisation with no side effects.Case 3 (2020–21): Z with a treatment-resistant psychosis who has been unwell for months and detained in four different PICUs. Z's father requested N Acetyl Cysteine which had historical calming and sedative effects for Z.ResultsThe main issue in case 1 is the conflict between the patient's Human Rights and RC's Duty of care. Here the patient could be potentially deprived of their right to make an ‘unwise decision’ should the RC bar her access to a treatment which lacks evidence but is privately available to public. This can be construed as an infringement of Article 8 of Human Rights.The issue in case 2 and 3 is rather different. Here the conflict is between the RC's duty of care to provide evidence-based treatments and the patient's “best interest” which seems to be an intervention without robust evidence.ConclusionWe have developed a flowchart to help RCs by navigating amongst several competing/ conflicting legal and ethical concepts such as: Patient's wish/Human rights, Patient's capacity, Bolam test, “Medical Treatment” Under Section 63, 62 or 58 of Mental Health Act 1983, Best interest, Second Opinion (SOAD) and advice from court.

The mental health safety improvement programme: a national quality improvement collaborative to reduce restrictive practice in England

In 2018, 38 mental health inpatient wards belonging to NHS trusts across England took part in the national reducing restrictive practice collaborative project, which aimed to reduce the use of rapid tranquillisation, restraint and seclusion of patients by 33%. Teams were supported to use quality improvement tools by skilled coaches as part of a national collaborative learning system. At the end of the programme, the overall use of restrictive practice had reduced by 15%. Of the teams that achieved improvements, the average reduction in restrictive practice was 61%. Across the collaborative there were improvements in the mean monthly use of restraints and rapid tranquillisation, and in the total use of all three measures of restrictive practice combined. Support from quality improvement coaches allowed ideas to be tested across the collaborative, enabling the creation of a theory of change for reducing restrictive practice based on areas with a high degree of belief to inform future improvement work in this area.

Free Papers Compiled

Introduction:Prevalence of violence and aggressive behaviour in acute psychiatric services is estimated to be 10%. Medications used to treat aggression should have rapid onset of action and low side effects. Rapid tranquilization is the use of medication by the parenteral route if oral medication is not possible or appropriate and urgent sedation with medication is needed. It is important to consider clinical needs, safety of patients and staffs while using rapid tranquilization.Aim:To study Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients requiring rapid tranquilization admitted in psychiatric tertiary care centre.Materials and methods:A retrospective descriptive study using case records of patients who required rapid tranquilization during admission in a tertiary care post graduate teaching institute from January 2021-june 2021. Socio-demographic variables and clinical characteristics including age of onset of illness, duration of illness, history of substance use, diagnosis, indications for rapid tranquilization, medications used for rapid tranquilization, single drug or combination, number of times rapid tranquilization was used, side effects was collected.Conclusion:Results from this study indicate that most prevalent diagnosis which needed rapid tranquilization was psychosis, followed by affective disorder and major indication for rapid tranquilization was physical aggression. Medication used for rapid tranquilization was combination drugs, given in intramuscular route, inj.haloperidol and inj.phenergan to reduce aggression.

Rapid tranquilization of the agitated patient in the emergency department: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Safe and effective tranquilization of the acutely agitated patient is challenging, and head-to-head comparisons of medications are limited. We aimed to identify the most optimal agent(s) for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the emergency department (ED). The protocol for systematic review was registered (PROSPERO; CRD42020212534). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Database/CENTRAL from inception to June 2, 2021. We limited studies to randomized controlled trials that enrolled adult ED patients with severe agitation and compared drugs for rapid tranquilization. Predetermined outcomes were: 1) Adequate sedation within 30min (effectiveness), 2) Immediate, serious adverse event - cardiac arrest, ventricular tachydysrhythmia, endotracheal intubation, laryngospasm, hypoxemia, hypotension (safety), and 3) Time to adequate sedation (effect onset). We extracted data according to PRISMA-NMA and appraised trials using Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method with random-effects model and vague prior distribution to calculate odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous outcomes and frequentist NMA to calculate mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcomes. We assessed confidence in results using CINeMA. We used surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves to rank agent(s) for each outcome. Eleven studies provided data for effectiveness (1142 patients) and safety (1147 patients). Data was insufficient for effect onset. The NMA found that ketamine (SUCRA=93.0%) is most likely to have superior effectiveness; droperidol-midazolam (SUCRA=78.8%) is most likely to be safest. There are concerns with study quality and imprecision. Quality of the point estimates varied for effectiveness but mostly rated "very low" for safety. Available evidence suggests that ketamine and droperidol have intermediate effectiveness for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the ED. There is insufficient evidence to definitively determine which agent(s) may be safest or fastest-acting. Further, direct-comparison study of ketamine and droperidol is recommended.

Women’s experiences of restrictive interventions within inpatient mental health services: A qualitative investigation

Restrictive interventions (RI), such as physical restraint, seclusion, and rapid tranquilization, can have negative psychological effects on service users; however, there has been little investigation regarding their effects on women. The aim of this paper was to explore women's experiences of RI within UK inpatient mental health services. Twenty women accessing inpatient mental health services participated in semi-structured interviews. Using thematic analysis (TA), three primary themes were reported from women's experiences: (1) powerlessness, (2) dehumanization, and (3) relationships and communication. Clinical recommendations included ensuring gender-awareness and trauma-informed care training is mandatory for all mental health staff, for RI training to include awareness of gender differences, and for policies to be reviewed with regard to women being invasively searched and ensuring sanitary products are safely available for women within seclusion. Directions for future research include investigating the experiences of RI for women from minority ethnic groups and exploring important moderators and mediators in the relationship between RI and re-traumatization for women.

A case of delayed-onset multiple oculogyric crisis and torticollis episodes after low dose intramuscular haloperidol in a non-neuroleptic drug overdose setting

This report documents a rare case of delayed-onset multiple acute dystonias after treatment with low dose intramuscular (IM) haloperidol lactate injection in a setting of non-neuroleptic drug overdose. The drug–drug interactions between haloperidol and high levels of paracetamol and naproxen are deliberated upon. A 25-year-old Asian female was admitted after an intentional overdose of medications (paracetamol, naproxen and pregabalin). She received 5 mg of IM haloperidol injection for agitation. 21 hours later she experienced mild intermittent ocular deviation in an upward and outward direction and generalised stiffness, which were self-resolving. An hour later, she required another 2.5 mg of IM haloperidol injection for further agitation. In the 35 hours following her first IM haloperidol (13 hours after the second IM haloperidol), she developed a total of three episodes of oculogyric crisis (OGC) with torticollis. Each episode was treated promptly with IM diphenhydramine 25 mg, and there was remission of symptoms within 15 minutes of treatment. An objective causality assessment revealed a definite relationship between the episodes of acute dystonia with IM haloperidol therapy. Where oral alternatives and IM atypical antipsychotics/benzodiazepines are unavailable, rapid tranquillisation with a high-potency typical antipsychotic is a possibility. However, consideration should be made to combine haloperidol with an anticholinergic agent as prophylaxis against acute dystonia, especially in the setting of drug overdose, even if it is that of a non-neuroleptic drug (in this case, paracetamol and naproxen).

Antipsychotic Drugs or Benzodiazepines for Rapid Tranquilization in Mental Health Facilities or Emergency Department Settings

&#x0D; Evidence from 5 systematic reviews, 3 randomized controlled trials, and 4 observational studies provide inconsistent evidence regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of antipsychotic drugs and benzodiazepines for adults with acute aggression or agitation requiring rapid tranquilization in emergency department or mental health inpatient settings.&#x0D; Overall, the evidence came from low- to moderate-quality studies. Some studies suggested different antipsychotic drugs and benzodiazepines, alone or in combination, have similar efficacy, whereas others favoured one treatment over another.&#x0D; No studies differentiated between adults aged 18 to 64 years and those older than 65 years. Most studies included mixed ages or excluded patients older than 75 years.&#x0D; No studies differentiated between aggression or agitation associated with psychiatric illness and other etiologies such as alcohol intoxication.&#x0D; One guideline suggests initial treatment with intramuscular lorazepam, promethazine, or 1 of aripiprazole, droperidol, or olanzapine. If the desired outcome is not achieved with monotherapy, the guideline recommends an intramuscular combination of either promethazine plus haloperidol or lorazepam plus haloperidol.&#x0D;

The relationship between ethnic background and the use of restrictive practices to manage incidents of violence or aggression in psychiatric inpatient settings

Restrictive practices raise considerable concern in mental health inpatient care. Previous studies suggest there are disparities in the use of restrictive practices to manage service users of different ethnic groups. The present study analyses the relationship between ethnicity and the use of restrictive practices to manage incidents of violence or aggression in inpatient settings across an NHS Mental Health Trust. Three years’ worth of routinely collected incident data were analysed using multilevel multiple logistic regression to assess the relationship between ethnic group and four types of restrictive practices: physical restraint (without prone), physical restraint (with prone), seclusion, and rapid tranquilization. We controlled for a range of demographic variables and the type and severity of the incident. Adjusted analyses showed that service users with a Black African [Odds Ratio = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.36–2.83, P < 0.001], Black Caribbean [Odds Ratio = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.08–2.85, P = 0.022], Black Other [Odds Ratio = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.27–2.44, P = 0.001], and Mixed [Odds Ratio = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.11–3.18, P = 0.019] ethnic background were more likely to be secluded, and Black Caribbean [Odds Ratio = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.02–2.07, P = 0.040] service users were more likely to be restrained in prone position. We did not detect differences in the use of physical restraints without prone or in the use of rapid tranquilization. Our findings illustrate the need to focus on outcomes for different ethnic groups when implementing restraint reduction programmes.

Are the rapid tranquilisation nice guidelines adhered to, in patients with agitated/aggressive behavior? a QIP

AimsTo explore whether the NICE guidelines for rapid tranquilisation are adhered to in the Psychiatric intensive care unit (PICU/ Tryweryn).MethodData were collected by core trainees. Standards were taken from NICE guidelines NG10. All patients who had received rapid tranquilisation, that were in PICU from August 2019 to February 2020 were considered in this a.ResultDuring the first PDSA, we discussed with the staff in the ward regarding the protocol. Prior to actually starting the second audit, the adherence was noted to be low. However following persistence and having created a protocol jointly with the ward manager, we could see the difference. The staff were appreciated for their efforts in maintaining 100% adherence. The same was intended to be continued with some positive reinforcement from the auditing team. Over the first 2 months, 12 patients received Rapid Tranquilisation. Out of these 12, we randomly selected 4 patients to find the adherence of the NICE guidelines to be 100 per cent. The predictions regarding the adherence to protocol showed that the PDSA was successful.During the second PDSA, the adherence was 100% again. The adherence to the protocol has been followed for not just the sample that was selected, but for the entire set of patients who received the Rapid Tranquilisation. Following this QIP, we formatted the proforma which included the services to be provided/ actions to be taken, Post Rapid Tranquilisation physical health monitoring and response to medication.ConclusionThe utilisation of de-escalation techniques and behavioural support plans that was person-centred in turn brought down the rate of Rapid Tranquilisation successfully. Thus placing our PICU as having the least restraints in the UK in 2019 (Second least 3/ month). Our PICU was awarded the prestigious Nursing Times Team of the Year Award for their pioneering work.Following this QIP, we then formatted the proforma for Rapid Tranquilisation which included the services to be provided/ actions to be taken, Post Rapid Tranquilisation physical health monitoring and patients response to medication. The PICU will continue to maintain this 100% standard and we would then consider extending the Audit to both Open wards and PICU in entire North Wales.

Quality improvement in remote prescribing

Quality improvement in remote prescribing

Improving the safety of rapid tranquilisation in older people

AimsTo identify intramuscular rapid tranquilisation (IMRT) events in all &gt;65 years inpatients in Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SPFT) and to establish whether accompanying documentation meets SPFT guidelines. This is a re-audit, initial data were collected in 2016. Multimodal intervention has been implemented since initial data collection. In psychiatric inpatients IMRT should be administered as a last resort to calm acutely disturbed patients after verbal de-escalation and an offer of oral medication has failed. IMRT can cause physical health complications and impact therapeutic relationships. Quality improvements made since initial data collection were: an IMRT treatment algorithm for &gt;65s, a teaching package for staff, IMRT prescription area on medicine cards and post IMRT physical monitoring forms – in line with updates to trust IMRT policy.MethodRetrospective case note audit cycle of 119 patients. Electronic and paper records were reviewed for inpatients &gt;65 years on 1/9/2019. Records were examined for instances of IMRT– the following features were noted: diagnosis; verbal de-escalation; oral medication offered prior to IMRT; IMRT prescription location; and post-IMRT monitoring. Descriptive statistics were performed. This audit was approved by the trust audit committee.ResultThere were 34 RT events in 17 patients, reduced from 83 RT events in 20 patients in 2016. De-escalation was attempted in 62% versus 34% in 2016, oral medication offered first in 71% versus 59% in 2016. Physical monitoring was fully completed in 50% of instances in 2019, an improvement from 23% in 2016.ConclusionEducation, a new treatment algorithm, medicine card changes, and IMRT physical monitoring forms have improved adherence to trust standards. There was a 49% reduction in IMRT events in 2019 versus 2016. De-escalation is being performed more frequently, and oral sedation offered in more cases. The physical monitoring of patients has improved.

Establishing safety huddles on a general adult acute psychiatric ward: staff's views and relation with restrictive practice

AimsTo establish Safety Huddles (SH) on an acute general adult psychiatric ward, exploring links to restrictive practice. Additionally, to obtain multidisciplinary staff feedback on SH's impact on their workload/wellbeing and on patient care, and to identify barriers in implementation.Background: A SH is a multidisciplinary daily briefing focused on patients most at risk, held at a fixed time and place, lasting max 5-10 minutes. Effective SH involve agreed actions, are informed by multidisciplinary staff feedback of data and provide the opportunity to appreciate and celebrate success in reducing harm. SH are a valuable team building activity, promoting situational awareness and helping with prioritising daily tasks.MethodSH were introduced on September 2020. Templates were developed to prompt staff how to facilitate. Staff were encouraged to identify key goals and reflect on issues in the last and next 24 hours. Each participant was allocated a role, e.g. record keeping or dissemination of information. In December 2020, records of incidence of restrictive practice (numbers of restraints, seclusions and rapid tranquilisations) were obtained for the periods June-August 2020 and September-November 2020. Additionally, staff feedback was obtained through a short anonymous Survey Monkey questionnaire. It explored whether SH had an effect on patient care and staff's workload/wellbeing, and possible barriers to implementation.ResultComparing the two 3-month periods before and after SH implementation, restraint episodes were reduced from 47 to 21, seclusion episodes from 19 to 2, and rapid tranquilisation episodes from 10 to 3. Nine staff members responded to the feedback questionnaire. All believed SH had a positive impact on patient care, or had the potential to do so. Staff reported SH gave them insight into incidents, made them feel safer and prepared for the day, played a part in reducing restrictive practice, and empowered staff from all professional backgrounds by giving them a voice. Low or late participation, cancellation of SH because of clinical activity, and vague questions in the meeting template were identified as barriers in implementation.ConclusionAcute psychiatric wards regularly face challenges of high clinical activity, low staffing levels, bed pressures, and high-risk patient cohorts. SH contributed to reducing restrictive practice and creating a safer and more positive work environment. It is important to ensure SH are taking place daily, using an appropriate template to guide staff who may be new to facilitating. Accordingly, the impact on restrictive practice, patient care and staff wellbeing can be sustained long-term.