Cardiometabolic risk in people under 40 years with severe mental illness: reading between the guidelines.

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have a shorter life expectancy than the rest of the population. Multimorbidity and poorer physical health contribute to this health inequality. Cardiometabolic multimorbidity confers a significant mortality risk in this population. Multimorbidity is not restricted to older people and people with SMI present with multimorbidity earlier in life. Despite this, most screening, prevention and treatment strategies target older people. People under 40 years with SMI are underserved by current guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment and reduction. Research is needed to develop and implement interventions to reduce cardiometabolic risk in this population.

The development and validation of a medicines optimisation tool to protect the physical health of people with severe mental illness (OPTIMISE).

BACKGROUND: The life expectancy of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is shorter than those without SMI, with multimorbidity and poorer physical health contributing to health inequality. Screening tools could potentially assist the optimisation of medicines to protect the physical health of people with SMI. The aim of our research was to design and validate a medicines optimisation tool (OPTIMISE) to help clinicians to optimise physical health in people with SMI. METHODS: A review of existing published guidelines, PubMed and Medline was carried out. Literature was examined for medicines optimisation recommendations and also for reference to the management of physical illness in people with mental illness. Potential indicators were grouped according to physiological system. A multidisciplinary team with expertise in mental health and the development of screening tools agreed that 83 indicators should be included in the first draft of OPTIMISE. The Delphi consensus technique was used to develop and validate the contents. A 17-member multidisciplinary panel of experts from the UK and Ireland completed 2 rounds of Delphi consensus, rating their level of agreement to 83 prescribing indicators using a 5-point Likert scale. Indicators were accepted for inclusion in the OPTIMISE tool after achieving a median score of 1 or 2, where 1 indicated strongly agree and 2 indicated agree, and 75th centile value of ≤ 2. Interrater reliability was assessed among 4 clinicians across 20 datasets and the chance corrected level of agreement (kappa) was calculated. The kappa statistic was interpreted as poor if 0.2 or less, fair if 0.21-0.4, moderate if 0.41-0.6, substantial if 0.61-0.8, and good if 0.81-1.0. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved after 2 rounds of Delphi for 62 prescribing indicators where 53 indicators were accepted after round 1 and a further 9 indicators were accepted after round 2. Interrater reliability of OPTIMISE between physicians and pharmacists indicated a substantial level of agreement with a kappa statistic of 0.75. CONCLUSIONS: OPTIMISE is a 62 indicator medicines optimisation tool designed to assist decision making in those treating adults with SMI. It was developed using a Delphi consensus methodology and interrater reliability is substantial. OPTIMISE has the potential to improve medicines optimisation by ensuring preventative medicines are considered when clinically indicated. Further research involving the implementation of OPTIMISE is required to demonstrate its true benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This article does not report the results of a health care intervention on human participants.

Check the effects: systematic assessment of antipsychotic side-effects in an inpatient cohort.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotics are associated with a range of side-effects that can influence patients' subjective well-being negatively resulting in poor adherence. In order to limit the negative consequences of side-effects, they should be regularly systematically assessed. The aim of this study was to systematically assess antipsychotic side-effects in an inpatient cohort using validated rating scales. METHODS: Eligible individuals prescribed an antipsychotic for at least 2 weeks were invited to have their side-effects assessed systematically. RESULTS: A total of 208 individuals were assessed systematically for antipsychotic side-effects; 71.5% (n = 138) stated that they had not reported side-effects to their clinician prior to the assessment. The most commonly reported side-effects were daytime drowsiness (75%), dry mouth (58.2%) and weight gain (50.0%), while the most distressing side-effects reported were erectile dysfunction (35.0%), sexual dysfunction (26.3%) and amenorrhoea (26.3%). There was no evidence of an association between side-effect severity/number of side-effects reported/distress caused by those taking high dose/combination antipsychotics versus standard dose monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Side-effects must be regularly and systematically assessed using a validated rating scale. As distress caused by side-effects plays a major role in non-adherence, assessment should examine distress and data on distressing side-effects should be available to those choosing an antipsychotic. Given the lack of correlation between high dose/combination antipsychotics and side-effects, treatment should be tailored to the individual based on response/tolerance and dose reduction/avoidance of polypharmacy should not be recommended to minimise side-effects.

Patients and Caregivers Helping to Shape the Undergraduate Pharmacy Mental Health Curriculum.

Objective. To develop a model system for involving patients and caregivers in curriculum development of mental health education in an undergraduate pharmacy program. Methods. Purposive recruitment was used to convene a focus group of nine people with experience in using mental health services from either the patient or caregiver perspective. Group members were asked about their experience with using pharmacy services and their suggestions for enhancement of the undergraduate curriculum. Thematic analysis was conducted independently by two researchers. Results. Patients and caregivers believed that pharmacists could contribute to the care of people who experience mental health conditions by supporting shared decision making, providing information, actively managing side effects of psychotropic medication, and conducting regular medication review. Subjects suggested that the pharmacy undergraduate curriculum should introduce mental health from the beginning, include self-care for students, integrate mental and physical health education, and enhance students' communication skills. The curriculum should include broader issues relevant to mental health beyond the use of medication, such as stigma, the recovery approach, and interprofessional cooperation. These changes could support graduates in engaging proactively with people experiencing mental health difficulties. Conclusion. Involving patients and caregivers in the design of an undergraduate pharmacy curriculum in mental health resulted in a more person-centered and student-centered approach to mental health education at our university. Ultimately, the changes made to the undergraduate curriculum will improve the ability of pharmacy graduates to better meet the needs of patients.