Antipsychotic management in general practice: serial cross-sectional study (2011-2020).

BACKGROUND: Long-term use of antipsychotics confers increased risk of cardiometabolic disease. Ongoing need should be reviewed regularly by psychiatrists. AIM: To explore trends in antipsychotic management in general practice, and proportions of patients prescribed antipsychotics receiving psychiatrist review. DESIGN AND SETTING: A serial cross-sectional study using linked general practice and hospital data in Wales (2011-2020). METHOD: Participants were adults (≥18 years) registered with general practices in Wales. Outcome measures were prevalence of patients receiving ≥6 antipsychotic prescriptions annually, proportion of patients prescribed antipsychotics receiving annual psychiatrist review, and proportion of patients prescribed antipsychotics registered on UK Serious Mental Illness, Depression and/or Dementia registers, or not on any of these registers. RESULTS: Prevalence of adults prescribed long-term antipsychotics increased from 1.06% (95%CI 1.04 to 1.07%) in 2011 to 1.45% (95%CI 1.43 to 1.46%) in 2020. The proportion receiving annual psychiatrist review decreased from 59.6% (95%CI 58.9 to 60.4%) in 2011 to 52.0% (95C%CI 51.4 to 52.7%) in 2020. The proportion of antipsychotics prescribed to patients not on the Serious Mental Illness register increased from 50% (95%CI 49 to 51%) in 2011 to 56% (95%CI 56 to 57%) by 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of long-term antipsychotic use is increasing. More patients are managed by general practitioners without psychiatrist review and are not on monitored disease registers; they thus may be less likely to undergo cardiometabolic monitoring and miss opportunities to optimise or deprescribe antipsychotics. These trends pose risks for patients and need to be addressed urgently.

A qualitative exploration of barriers to efficient and effective structured medication reviews in primary care: Findings from the DynAIRx study.

INTRODUCTION: Structured medication reviews (SMRs), introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2020, aim to enhance shared decision-making in medication optimisation, particularly for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Despite its potential, there is limited empirical evidence on the implementation of SMRs, and the challenges faced in the process. This study is part of a larger DynAIRx (Artificial Intelligence for dynamic prescribing optimisation and care integration in multimorbidity) project which aims to introduce Artificial Intelligence (AI) to SMRs and develop machine learning models and visualisation tools for patients with multimorbidity. Here, we explore how SMRs are currently undertaken and what barriers are experienced by those involved in them. METHODS: Qualitative focus groups and semi-structured interviews took place between 2022-2023. Six focus groups were conducted with doctors, pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists (n = 21), and three patient focus groups with patients with multimorbidity (n = 13). Five semi-structured interviews were held with 2 pharmacists, 1 trainee doctor, 1 policy-maker and 1 psychiatrist. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two key themes limiting the effectiveness of SMRs in clinical practice were identified: 'Medication Reviews in Practice' and 'Medication-related Challenges'. Participants noted limitations to the efficient and effectiveness of SMRs in practice including the scarcity of digital tools for identifying and prioritising patients for SMRs; organisational and patient-related challenges in inviting patients for SMRs and ensuring they attend; the time-intensive nature of SMRs, the need for multiple appointments and shared decision-making; the impact of the healthcare context on SMR delivery; poor communication and data sharing issues between primary and secondary care; difficulties in managing mental health medications and specific challenges associated with anticholinergic medication. CONCLUSION: SMRs are complex, time consuming and medication optimisation may require multiple follow-up appointments to enable a comprehensive review. There is a need for a prescribing support system to identify, prioritise and reduce the time needed to understand the patient journey when dealing with large volumes of disparate clinical information in electronic health records. However, monitoring the effects of medication optimisation changes with a feedback loop can be challenging to establish and maintain using current electronic health record systems.

Speaking the Same Language - The Development of a Glossary of Terms for Social Prescribing in Wales.

Introduction: Social prescribing can facilitate the integration of health, social care and community support but has a diverse and confusing terminology that impairs cross-sectoral communication and creates barriers to engagement. Methods: To address this issue a mixed-methods approach that incorporated a scoping review, a group concept mapping study and consultation was employed to identify and classify the terminology associated with social prescribing. The findings were then used to inform the development of a glossary of terms for social prescribing. Results: Many terms are used interchangeably to describe the same specific aspects of social prescribing. Much of the terminology originates from the health and social care literature of England. Discussion: The terminology used in the academic literature may not accurately reflect the terminology used by the social prescribing workforce. The innovative and interactive glossary of terms identifies the terminology associated with social prescribing and provides additional contextual information. The process of developing the dual language glossary presented several considerations and challenges. Conclusion: The glossary of terms will facilitate cross-sector communication and reduce barriers to engagement with social prescribing. It takes an important first step to help clarify and standardise the language associated with social prescribing, for professionals and members of the public alike.

Management of antipsychotics in primary care: Insights from healthcare professionals and policy makers in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Antipsychotic medication is increasingly prescribed to patients with serious mental illness. Patients with serious mental illness often have cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities, and antipsychotics independently increase the risk of cardiometabolic disease. Despite this, many patients prescribed antipsychotics are discharged to primary care without planned psychiatric review. We explore perceptions of healthcare professionals and managers/directors of policy regarding reasons for increasing prevalence and management of antipsychotics in primary care. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 11 general practitioners (GPs), 8 psychiatrists, and 11 managers/directors of policy in the United Kingdom. Data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Respondents reported competency gaps that impaired ability to manage patients prescribed antipsychotic medications, arising from inadequate postgraduate training and professional development. GPs lacked confidence to manage antipsychotic medications alone; psychiatrists lacked skills to address cardiometabolic risks and did not perceive this as their role. Communication barriers, lack of integrated care records, limited psychology provision, lowered expectation towards patients with serious mental illness by professionals, and pressure to discharge from hospital resulted in patients in primary care becoming 'trapped' on antipsychotics, inhibiting opportunities to deprescribe. Organisational and contractual barriers between services exacerbate this risk, with socioeconomic deprivation and lack of access to non-pharmacological interventions driving overprescribing. Professionals voiced fears of censure if a catastrophic event occurred after stopping an antipsychotic. Facilitators to overcome these barriers were suggested. CONCLUSIONS: People prescribed antipsychotics experience a fragmented health system and suboptimal care. Several interventions could be taken to improve care for this population, but inadequate availability of non-pharmacological interventions and socioeconomic factors increasing mental distress need policy change to improve outcomes. The role of professionals' fear of medicolegal or regulatory censure inhibiting antipsychotic deprescribing was a new finding in this study.

Cardiovascular risk estimation in rural psychiatric inpatient populations: Cross-sectional preliminary study.

Cardiovascular risk was evaluated in patients admitted to rural inpatient psychiatric services over a one-year period in a sparsely populated region of the United Kingdom. Care records were analysed for risk factor recording, and cardiovascular risk estimated using the QRISK3 calculator, which estimates 10-year risk of myocardial infarction or stroke. Of eligible patients, risk factor recording as part of routine care was completed in 86% of possible QRISK3 inputs, enabling QIRSK3 estimation in all eligible patients. QRISK3 for this group was significantly raised relative to an age, sex and ethnicity-matched population, and high risk of cardiovascular disease (QRISK3 score >10%) was detected in 28% of patients. The results demonstrate that there is significant unmet need in rural patients for cardiovascular risk reduction that could be identified as part of routine care. An opportunity exists to integrate mental and physical healthcare by routinely assessing cardiovascular risk in rural psychiatric inpatients. Resources and training are needed to produce this risk information and act on it.

The DynAIRx Project Protocol: Artificial Intelligence for dynamic prescribing optimisation and care integration in multimorbidity.

Background: Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are intended to help deliver the NHS Long Term Plan for medicines optimisation in people living with multiple long-term conditions and polypharmacy. It is challenging to gather the information needed for these reviews due to poor integration of health records across providers and there is little guidance on how to identify those patients most urgently requiring review. Objective: To extract information from scattered clinical records on how health and medications change over time, apply interpretable artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to predict risks of poor outcomes and overlay this information on care records to inform SMRs. We will pilot this approach in primary care prescribing audit and feedback systems, and co-design future medicines optimisation decision support systems. Design: DynAIRx will target potentially problematic polypharmacy in three key multimorbidity groups, namely, people with (a) mental and physical health problems, (b) four or more long-term conditions taking ten or more drugs and (c) older age and frailty. Structured clinical data will be drawn from integrated care records (general practice, hospital, and social care) covering an ∼11m population supplemented with Natural Language Processing (NLP) of unstructured clinical text. AI systems will be trained to identify patterns of conditions, medications, tests, and clinical contacts preceding adverse events in order to identify individuals who might benefit most from an SMR. Discussion: By implementing and evaluating an AI-augmented visualisation of care records in an existing prescribing audit and feedback system we will create a learning system for medicines optimisation, co-designed throughout with end-users and patients.