Physical Health Monitoring of Patients on Antipsychotic Medication at a Medium Secure Unit

AIMS: People who have a serious mental illness have a higher prevalence of physical health problems as compared to the general population; with a 2–3 times greater risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, double the risk of obesity and diabetes, three times the risk of hypertension and metabolic syndrome and five times the risk of dyslipidaemia than the general population. There is a concern that some antipsychotic drugs have metabolic consequences that contribute to the risk. As such, it is imperative that patients treated with antipsychotics receive appropriate health monitoring. Physical health monitoring of antipsychotic medications is an essential aspect of our practice, and despite assurance in previous audits, we agreed to monitor biannually to ensure we were maintaining standards. Additionally, this audit aimed to look more closely at special monitoring requirements for drugs such as Olanzapine, Chlorpromazine, Clozapine and Quetiapine which had not been measured in previous audits and would likely highlight some areas for improvement. METHODS: Audit standards were drawn from the Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines in Psychiatry 14th edition, in addition to NICE Guidance CG178 - Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: prevention and management. A random number generator was used to select patients from each of the 7 wards, giving a sample size of 21 patients. Data were collected on Weight, BP, ECG and various blood tests conducted from February 2021 – February 2022. Data was collected from a combination of patient electronic record, CPA reports, and online blood results system. Data were inputted to MS Excel which created percentage compliance in each domain. RESULTS: 1. Blood Pressure: General compliance in the taking of BP met our standard of 100%. 2. Weight: Annual monitoring compliance was 93% however compliance fell short for special recommendations for Clozapine, Olanzapine and Chlorpromazine. 3. ECG: Our compliance fell short in the recording of an ECG on admission, or at reaching target medication dose. Annual monitoring compliance was 93%. 4. Bloods: Annual compliance for FBC, LFT, U&Es, Lipids, Prolactin and 5. Glucose were 100%, however our compliance fell short for baseline recording and interim 3-6 monthly monitoring for various blood tests. CONCLUSION: Overall results demonstrate good, safe practice, particularly during a challenging period for clinical teams. Shortfalls particularly at baseline were related to risk issues making investigations impractical. It was agreed that there should be an increased frequency of regular glucose monitoring and that HbA1c monitoring was a reasonable measure for this.