RESUMO
It is well established that patients with mental illness are known to have a high level of morbidity and mortality compared to the general population. This is particularly prominent in long-stay psychiatric patients, such as those in secure settings. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommends that psychiatrists should promote the physical health of their patients and liaise with other specialties. However, there is evidence that communication between psychiatry and other specialties is poor. A survey was carried out at the North London Forensic Service in June 2014. This looked at the views of clinical staff about the frequency and quality of feedback obtained when inpatients attend outpatient hospital appointments at local general hospitals. This survey highlighted the general perception among staff that feedback is poor, with 68.43% of respondents saying that they were "very unsatisfied" or "unsatisfied" with the level and quality of feedback. Clinical staff felt that many patients who attended hospital outpatient appointments, even when escorted by staff, returned with little or no feedback. This was confirmed by a baseline audit across 3 wards showing that details of the appointment (date, time, hospital, and specialty) were only documented in 54.5% of cases and the content of the appointment documented in even fewer cases. A form was designed by junior doctors that provided a simple framework of 6 questions to be answered at the outpatient clinic about the problem, diagnosis, and further actions needed. This was introduced and its impact assessed with a 3-month and 6-month audit of electronic notes, as well as a follow-up survey after 6 months. The audit showed significant improvement in the quality of feedback about the appointment at both the 3-month and 6-month point. The follow-up survey showed that 70% of respondents were aware of the form and 100% of those who were aware of the form had used it at least once and found it helpful. The general satisfaction level improved, but remained low, with 40% of respondents saying that they were "very unsatisfied" or "unsatisfied" with the level and quality of feedback. This QIP shows that the outpatient appointment form is a useful and effective tool when staff know about it and use it. We plan to look at the barriers to using the form and consider future solutions to the need for increased engagement with nursing staff stakeholders in future PDSA cycles.
RESUMO
Hospital-Acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in older adults. In psychiatric patients these risks are increased due to multiple factors including poor mobility, restraint, catatonia, sedation, and conventional antipsychotic use. Diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric patients presenting with signs and symptoms of a VTE can be delayed due to a patient's communication difficulties, non-compliance, or attribution of symptoms to a psychosomatic cause. However, despite the increased risk, approved VTE prophylaxis protocols are infrequently used on Psychiatric wards. On one Older Adult Psychiatric Ward, two patients presented with VTE (a fatal pulmonary embolism and a symptomatic deep vein thrombosis) over a 6 month period demonstrating the necessity for prophylactic assessment. A baseline audit over 3 months showed that 63-83% of patients on the ward had received no assessment of VTE risk, on any given week, although this improved slightly following the critical incidents. A VTE prophylaxis protocol, based on NICE guidance for VTE risk assessment in Medical and Surgical patients, was developed with consideration given to additional Psychiatric risk factors. This took the form of a pro-forma with a tick-box design that included mobility assessment, VTE risk factors, bleeding risk factors, and guidance on prescribing decisions. This was implemented on an Older Adult Psychiatric ward and prophylaxis was provided to those meeting the threshold. Weekly audit of all pro-formas (including assessments completed within 48 hours of admission and prophylaxis prescription) was conducted after the pro-forma introduction from 1st February 2013 to 24th May 2013. Frequency of assessments increased after protocol implementation with between 36% and 85% of all patients being assessed for VTE risk post intervention. Fluctuations in numbers assessed may have related to ward pressures, staff changes, and practicalities of pro-forma use. After completion of the PDSA cycles the initiative was handed over to a specialist registrar for implementation across the other trust Older Adult Psychiatry wards, and further audit was planned to be conducted via junior doctors and established Quality Assurance systems. Discussion of integration of a condensed pro-forma into the trust electronic notes system is ongoing.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND Haemorrhoids are variceal dilatations of the anal and perianal venous plexus and often develop secondary to the persistently elevated venous pressure within the haemorrhoidal plexus. Phlebotonics are a heterogenous class of drugs consisting of plant extracts (i.e. flavonoids) and synthetic compounds (i.e. calcium dobesilate). Although their precise mechanism of action has not been fully established, they are known to improve venous tone, stabilize capillary permeability and increase lymphatic drainage. They have been used to treat a variety of conditions including chronic venous insufficiency, lymphoedema and haemorrhoids. OBJECTIVE The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy of phlebotonics in alleviating the signs, symptoms and severity of haemorrhoidal disease and verify their effect post-haemorrhoidectomy. METHODS Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library 2011 issue 9, MEDLINE (1950 to September 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to September 2011). Selection criteria: Only randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of phlebotonics in treating haemorrhoidal disease were used. No cross-over or cluster-randomized trials were included for analysis and any trial which had a quasi-random method of allocation was excluded. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently extracted the data and analyzed the eligibility of the data for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by meaningful discussion. MAIN RESULTS We considered twenty-four studies for inclusion in the final analysis. Twenty of these studies (enrolling a total of 2344 participants) evaluated the use of phlebotonics versus a control intervention. One of these twenty studies evaluated the use of phlebotonics with a medical intervention and another study with rubber band ligation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence suggests that there is a potential benefit in using phlebotonics ...
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Haemorrhoids are variceal dilatations of the anal and perianal venous plexus and often develop secondary to the persistently elevated venous pressure within the haemorrhoidal plexus (Kumar 2005). Phlebotonics are a heterogenous class of drugs consisting of plant extracts (i.e. flavonoids) and synthetic compounds (i.e. calcium dobesilate). Although their precise mechanism of action has not been fully established, they are known to improve venous tone, stabilize capillary permeability and increase lymphatic drainage. They have been used to treat a variety of conditions including chronic venous insufficiency, lymphoedema and haemorrhoids.Numerous trials assessing the effect of phlebotonics in treating the symptoms and signs of haemorrhoidal disease suggest that there is a potential benefit. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy of phlebotonics in alleviating the signs, symptoms and severity of haemorrhoidal disease and verify their effect post-haemorrhoidectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library 2011 issue 9 , MEDLINE (1950 to September 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to September 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of phlebotonics in treating haemorrhoidal disease were used. No cross-over or cluster-randomized trials were included for analysis and any trial which had a quasi-random method of allocation was excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and analysed the eligibility of the data for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by meaningful discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We considered twenty-four studies for inclusion in the final analysis. Twenty of these studies (enrolling a total of 2344 participants) evaluated the use of phlebotonics versus a control intervention. One of these twenty studies evaluated the use of phlebotonics with a medical intervention and another study with rubber band ligation.The remaining four studies included two which compared different forms of phlebotonics with each other, one study which evaluated phlebotonics with a medical intervention and one study which compared the use of phlebotonics with infrared photocoagulation. Eight studies were excluded for various reasons including poor methodological quality.Phlebotonics demonstrated a statistically significant beneficial effect for the outcomes of pruritus (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.79) (P=0.02), bleeding (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) (P=0.0002), bleeding post-haemorrhoidectomy (OR 0.18; 95% 0.06 to 0.58)(P=0.004), discharge and leakage (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.42) (P=0.0008) and overall symptom improvement (OR 15.99 95% CI 5.97 to 42.84) (P< 0.00001), in comparison with a control intervention. Although beneficial they did not show a statistically significant effect compared with a control intervention for pain (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.11) (P=0.06), pain scores post-haemorrhoidectomy (SMD -1.04; 95% CI -3.21 to 1.12 ) (P= 0.35) or post-operative analgesic consumption (OR 0.54; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99)(P=0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that there is a potential benefit in using phlebotonics in treating haemorrhoidal disease as well as a benefit in alleviating post-haemorrhoidectomy symptoms. Outcomes such as bleeding and overall symptom improvement show a statistically significant beneficial effect and there were few concerns regarding their overall safety from the evidence presented in the clinical trials.However methodological limitations were encountered. In order to enhance our conclusion further, more robust clinical trials which take into account these limitations will need to be performed in the future.