A service evaluation of passive remote monitoring technology for patients in a high-secure forensic psychiatric hospital: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Technology has the potential to remotely monitor patient safety in real-time that helps staff and without disturbing the patient. However, staff and patients' perspectives on using passive remote monitoring within an inpatient setting is lacking. The study aim was to explore stakeholders' perspectives about using Oxehealth passive monitoring technology within a high-secure forensic psychiatric hospital in the UK as part of a wider mixed-methods service evaluation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff and patients with experience of using Oxehealth technology face-to-face within a private room in Broadmoor Hospital. We applied thematic analysis to the data of each participant group separately. Themes and sub-themes were integrated, finalised, and presented in a thematic map. Design, management, and analysis was meaningfully informed by both staff and patients. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants were interviewed (n = 12 staff, n = 12 patients). There were seven main themes: detecting deterioration and improving health and safety, "big brother syndrome", privacy and dignity, knowledge and understanding, acceptance, barriers to use and practice issues and future changes needed. Oxehealth technology was considered acceptable to both staff and patients if the technology was used to detect deterioration and improve patient's safety providing patient's privacy was not invaded. However, overall acceptance was lower when knowledge and understanding of the technology and its camera was limited. Most patients could not understand why both physical checks through bedroom windows, and Oxehealth was needed to monitor patients, whilst staff felt Oxehealth should not replace physical checks of patients as reassures staff on patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Oxehealth technology is considered viable and acceptable by most staff and patients but there is still some concern about its possible intrusive nature. However, more support and education for new patients and staff to better understand how Oxehealth works in the short- and long-term could be introduced to further improve acceptability. A feasibility study or pilot trial to compare the impact of Oxehealth with and without physical checks may be needed.

Olanzapine long-acting injection, discontinuation rates and reasons for discontinuation: 10 years' experience at a UK high-secure hospital.

Background: Olanzapine pamoate has been shown to be an effective second-generation long-acting injection. Its popularity has possibly been adversely affected by the rare incidence of post-injection syndrome (PIS) and the associated requirement to monitor for 3 h after each injection. Objective: This study aimed to collect and present data on the use of olanzapine long-acting injection (OLAI) over a 10-year period in a high-security forensic hospital in South East England. Design: This was a non-interventional retrospective study collecting information from anonymised electronic patient and prescription records. As per hospital Trust guidelines, patient consent to access of hospital records was presumed unless explicitly withdrawn. Method: All patients prescribed OLAI between the years 2009 and 2019 were identified. Data collected included date that OLAI was started, stopped, dose range, side effects and concomitant medication. Results: Of 88 patients who were started OLAI, 45 (51%) continued at month 24. At 60 months, 22 of 70 (31%) patients for whom data were available continued with OLAI. Over 60% of continuers were on higher than recommended doses. Of almost 5000 injections administered, there was 1 episode of PIS. Conclusion: OLAI is an effective treatment for schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, especially when used in patients have been able to tolerate the drug and were stabilised on it for 24 months. In over half the patients who continued OLAI, the doses were higher than that recommended by the manufacturer. The incidence of PIS in this study was very low in comparison with other studies. Registration code: 2049.