Cargando…

Quality of seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines

AIMS: We accessed whether medics are following Trust Policy while conducting seclusion medical review and identify the strengths in quality of seclusion medical review and identify the areas which need improvements to improve our quality and standards of patient's care and safety and to reduce...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shahbaz, Shumaila, Ward, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8770397/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.585
_version_ 1784635361738096640
author Shahbaz, Shumaila
Ward, Richard
author_facet Shahbaz, Shumaila
Ward, Richard
author_sort Shahbaz, Shumaila
collection PubMed
description AIMS: We accessed whether medics are following Trust Policy while conducting seclusion medical review and identify the strengths in quality of seclusion medical review and identify the areas which need improvements to improve our quality and standards of patient's care and safety and to reduce risks. BACKGROUND: The Mental Health Act Code of Practice sets an expectation for mental health services for restrictive interventions (use of restraint, seclusion and rapid tranquilisation) by following good standards. Medical reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate and amend seclusion management plan. This clinical audit was undertaken by looking at quality of record keeping about seclusion review by junior doctors, staff grades and consultants at different times (day, night, and weekend). METHOD: 1. A review of patient's physical and psychiatric health. 2. An assessment medication prescribed and adverse effects of medication. 3. A review of observations required. 4. An assessment of the risk posed by the patient to others. 5. An assessment of any risk to the patient from deliberate or accidental self-harm. 6. An assessment of need for continuing seclusion, and whether it is possible for seclusion measures to be applied more flexibly, or in a less restrictive manner. 7. Time of Seclusion Review: Within first hour after seclusion and then every 4 hours until internal MDT. After MDT twice a day. 8. Record Keeping. RESULT: Key Successes (above 80%) Time of seclusion review (with in first hour or when required) Record keeping (accurate time and place for clinical notes). Plan for continuing need for seclusion. Good documentation of Risk to self and risk to others. Good documentation of mental state examination. Comments on physical health although it can be improved. Key Concerns(Less than 60%): Prescribed Medications. Medication side effects. Physical Observations CONCLUSION: Medics are missing some important parts in seclusion medical review. We developed a template for seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines which are based on Code of Practice and to incorporate in already existing seclusion review form. We also delivered teaching and training to doctors and also showed junior doctor's an example of documentation. We will re-audit in 1 years’ time to see improvement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8770397
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87703972022-01-31 Quality of seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines Shahbaz, Shumaila Ward, Richard BJPsych Open Quality Improvement AIMS: We accessed whether medics are following Trust Policy while conducting seclusion medical review and identify the strengths in quality of seclusion medical review and identify the areas which need improvements to improve our quality and standards of patient's care and safety and to reduce risks. BACKGROUND: The Mental Health Act Code of Practice sets an expectation for mental health services for restrictive interventions (use of restraint, seclusion and rapid tranquilisation) by following good standards. Medical reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate and amend seclusion management plan. This clinical audit was undertaken by looking at quality of record keeping about seclusion review by junior doctors, staff grades and consultants at different times (day, night, and weekend). METHOD: 1. A review of patient's physical and psychiatric health. 2. An assessment medication prescribed and adverse effects of medication. 3. A review of observations required. 4. An assessment of the risk posed by the patient to others. 5. An assessment of any risk to the patient from deliberate or accidental self-harm. 6. An assessment of need for continuing seclusion, and whether it is possible for seclusion measures to be applied more flexibly, or in a less restrictive manner. 7. Time of Seclusion Review: Within first hour after seclusion and then every 4 hours until internal MDT. After MDT twice a day. 8. Record Keeping. RESULT: Key Successes (above 80%) Time of seclusion review (with in first hour or when required) Record keeping (accurate time and place for clinical notes). Plan for continuing need for seclusion. Good documentation of Risk to self and risk to others. Good documentation of mental state examination. Comments on physical health although it can be improved. Key Concerns(Less than 60%): Prescribed Medications. Medication side effects. Physical Observations CONCLUSION: Medics are missing some important parts in seclusion medical review. We developed a template for seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines which are based on Code of Practice and to incorporate in already existing seclusion review form. We also delivered teaching and training to doctors and also showed junior doctor's an example of documentation. We will re-audit in 1 years’ time to see improvement. Cambridge University Press 2021-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC8770397/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.585 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Quality Improvement
Shahbaz, Shumaila
Ward, Richard
Quality of seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines
title Quality of seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines
title_full Quality of seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines
title_fullStr Quality of seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines
title_full_unstemmed Quality of seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines
title_short Quality of seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines
title_sort quality of seclusion medical review according to trust guidelines
topic Quality Improvement
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8770397/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.585
work_keys_str_mv AT shahbazshumaila qualityofseclusionmedicalreviewaccordingtotrustguidelines
AT wardrichard qualityofseclusionmedicalreviewaccordingtotrustguidelines