Preventable suicides involving medicines: A systematic case series of coroners' reports in England and Wales.

Background: In England and Wales coroners have a duty to write a report, called a Prevention of Future Deaths report or PFD, when they believe that actions should be taken to prevent future deaths. Coroners send PFDs to individuals and organisations who are required to respond within 56 days. Despite the increase in mental health concerns and growing use of medicines, deaths reported by coroners that have involved medicine-related suicides had not yet been explored. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically assess coroners' PFD reports involving suicides in which a medicine caused or contributed to the death to identify lessons for suicide prevention. Methods: Using the Preventable Deaths Tracker database (https://preventabledeathstracker.net/), 3037 coroners' PFD reports in England and Wales were screened for eligibility between July 2013 and December 2019. Reports were included if they involved suicide or intentional self-harm and prescribed or over-the-counter medication; illicit drugs were excluded. Following data extraction, descriptive statistics, document and content analysis were performed to assess coroners' concerns and the recipients of reports. Results: There were 734 suicide-related coroner reports, with 100 (14%) reporting a medicine. Opioids (40%) were the most common class involved, followed by antidepressants (30%). There was wide geographical variation in the writing of reports; coroners in Manchester wrote the most (18%). Coroners expressed 237 concerns; the most common were procedural inadequacies (14%, n = 32), inadequate documentation and communication (10%, n = 22), and inappropriate prescription access (9%, n = 21). 203 recipients received the PFDs, with most sent to NHS trusts (31%), clinical commissioning groups (10%), and general practices (10%), of which only 58% responded to the coroner. Conclusions: One in four coroner reports in England and Wales involved suicides, with one in seven suicide-related deaths involving a medicine. Concerns raised by coroners highlighted gaps in care that require action from the Government, health services, and prescribers to aid suicide prevention. Coroner reports should be routinely used and monitored to inform public health policy, disseminated nationally, and responses to coroners should be transparently enforced so that actions are taken to prevent future suicides.

Diagnostic test guidelines based on high-quality evidence had greater rates of adherence: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between the quality of guidelines for diagnostic tests (both the quality and reporting and the quality of the evidence underpinning recommendations) and nonadherence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a meta-epidemiological study. We previously published a systematic review that quantified the percentage of test use that was nonadherent with guidelines. For the present study, we assessed these guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. We then assessed the quality of evidence underpinning recommendations within these guidelines using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Linear models were then constructed to determine the association between guideline nonadherence and (1) AGREE II score and (2) GRADE score. RESULTS: There was no significant association between AGREE II score and nonadherent testing (P = 0.09). There was a significant association between GRADE score and nonadherence: recommendations based on low-quality and very low-quality evidence had 38% (P < 0.01) and 24% (P = 0.02) more nonadherent testing, compared with recommendations based on high-quality evidence. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic test guideline recommendations based on high-quality evidence are adhered to more frequently.

Short- and medium-term effects of light to moderate alcohol intake on glycaemic control in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: People with diabetes are told that drinking alcohol may increase their risk of hypoglycaemia. AIMS: To report the effects of alcohol consumption on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched in 2015 to identify randomized trials that compared alcohol consumption with no alcohol use, reporting glycaemic control in people with diabetes. Data on blood glucose, HbA1c and numbers of hypoglycaemic episodes were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Pooled data from nine short-term studies showed no difference in blood glucose concentrations between those who drank alcohol in doses of 16-80 g (median 20 g, 2.5 units) compared with those who did not drink alcohol at 0.5, 2, 4 and 24 h after alcohol consumption. Pooled data from five medium-term studies showed that there was no difference in blood glucose or HbA1c concentrations at the end of the study between those who drank 11-18 g alcohol/day (median 13 g/day, 1.5 units/day) for 4-104 weeks and those who did not. We found no evidence of a difference in number of hypoglycaemic episodes or in withdrawal rates between randomized groups. CONCLUSIONS: Studies to date have not provided evidence that drinking light to moderate amounts of alcohol, with or without a meal, affects any measure of glycaemic control in people with Type 2 diabetes. These results suggest that current advice that people with diabetes do not need to refrain from drinking moderate quantities of alcohol does not need to be changed; risks to those with Type 1 diabetes remain uncertain.

Evidence-based guidelines for treating bipolar disorder: Revised third edition recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology.

The British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines specify the scope and targets of treatment for bipolar disorder. The third version is based explicitly on the available evidence and presented, like previous Clinical Practice Guidelines, as recommendations to aid clinical decision making for practitioners: it may also serve as a source of information for patients and carers, and assist audit. The recommendations are presented together with a more detailed review of the corresponding evidence. A consensus meeting, involving experts in bipolar disorder and its treatment, reviewed key areas and considered the strength of evidence and clinical implications. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from these participants. The best evidence from randomized controlled trials and, where available, observational studies employing quasi-experimental designs was used to evaluate treatment options. The strength of recommendations has been described using the GRADE approach. The guidelines cover the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, clinical management, and strategies for the use of medicines in short-term treatment of episodes, relapse prevention and stopping treatment. The use of medication is integrated with a coherent approach to psychoeducation and behaviour change.

Laughter and MIRTH (Methodical Investigation of Risibility, Therapeutic and Harmful): narrative synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To review the beneficial and harmful effects of laughter. DESIGN: Narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS: We searched Medline (1946 to June 2013) and Embase (1974 to June 2013) for reports of benefits or harms from laughter in humans, and counted the number of papers in each category. RESULTS: Benefits of laughter include reduced anger, anxiety, depression, and stress; reduced tension (psychological and cardiovascular); increased pain threshold; reduced risk of myocardial infarction (presumably requiring hearty laughter); improved lung function; increased energy expenditure; and reduced blood glucose concentration. However, laughter is no joke-dangers include syncope, cardiac and oesophageal rupture, and protrusion of abdominal hernias (from side splitting laughter or laughing fit to burst), asthma attacks, interlobular emphysema, cataplexy, headaches, jaw dislocation, and stress incontinence (from laughing like a drain). Infectious laughter can disseminate real infection, which is potentially preventable by laughing up your sleeve. As a side effect of our search for side effects, we also list pathological causes of laughter, among them epilepsy (gelastic seizures), cerebral tumours, Angelman's syndrome, strokes, multiple sclerosis, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or motor neuron disease. CONCLUSIONS: Laughter is not purely beneficial. The harms it can cause are immediate and dose related, the risks being highest for Homeric (uncontrollable) laughter. The benefit-harm balance is probably favourable. It remains to be seen whether sick jokes make you ill or jokes in bad taste cause dysgeusia, and whether our views on comedians stand up to further scrutiny.

Medication errors: what they are, how they happen, and how to avoid them.

A medication error is a failure in the treatment process that leads to, or has the potential to lead to, harm to the patient. Medication errors can occur in deciding which medicine and dosage regimen to use (prescribing faults--irrational, inappropriate, and ineffective prescribing, underprescribing, overprescribing); writing the prescription (prescription errors); manufacturing the formulation (wrong strength, contaminants or adulterants, wrong or misleading packaging); dispensing the formulation (wrong drug, wrong formulation, wrong label); administering or taking the medicine (wrong dose, wrong route, wrong frequency, wrong duration); monitoring therapy (failing to alter therapy when required, erroneous alteration). They can be classified, using a psychological classification of errors, as knowledge-, rule-, action- and memory-based errors. Although medication errors can occasionally be serious, they are not commonly so and are often trivial. However, it is important to detect them, since system failures that result in minor errors can later lead to serious errors. Reporting of errors should be encouraged by creating a blame-free, non-punitive environment. Errors in prescribing include irrational, inappropriate, and ineffective prescribing, underprescribing and overprescribing (collectively called prescribing faults) and errors in writing the prescription (including illegibility). Avoiding medication errors is important in balanced prescribing, which is the use of a medicine that is appropriate to the patient's condition and, within the limits created by the uncertainty that attends therapeutic decisions, in a dosage regimen that optimizes the balance of benefit to harm. In balanced prescribing the mechanism of action of the drug should be married to the pathophysiology of the disease.