Implementation of treatment escalation plans in an old age psychiatry inpatient hospital.

A treatment escalation plan (TEP) enables timely and appropriate decision making in the management of deteriorating patients. The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated the widespread use of TEPs in acute care settings throughout the National Health Service (NHS) to facilitate safe and effective decision making. TEP proformas have not been developed for the inpatient psychiatric setting. This is particularly concerning in old age psychiatry inpatient wards where patients often have multiple compounding comorbidities and complex decisions regarding capacity are often made. Our aim for this quality improvement project was to pilot a novel TEP proforma within a UK old age psychiatry inpatient hospital. We first adapted a TEP proforma used in our partner acute tertiary hospital and implemented it on our old age psychiatry wards. We then further refined the form and gathered data about uptake, length of time to complete a TEP and the ceiling of care documented in the TEP. We also explored staff, patient and family views on the usefulness of TEP proformas using questionaries. TEP decisions were documented in 54% of patient records at baseline. Following revision and implementation of a TEP proforma this increased to 100% on our two wards. The mean time taken to complete a TEP was reduced from 7.1 days to 3.2 days following inclusion of the TEP proforma in admission packs. Feedback from staff showed improvements in understanding about TEP and improved knowledge of where these decisions were documented. We advocate the use of TEP proformas on all old age psychiatry inpatient wards to offer clear guidance to relatives and treating clinicians about the ceilings of care for patients. There are potentially wider benefits to healthcare systems by reducing inappropriate transfers between psychiatry and acute NHS hospitals.

Multinational comparative cross-sectional survey of views of medical students about acceptable terminology and subgroups in schizophrenia.

AIM: The aim of this study was to inform thinking around the terminology for 'schizophrenia' in different countries. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate: (1) whether medical students view alternative terminology (psychosis subgroups), derived from vulnerability-stress models of schizophrenia, as acceptable and less stigmatising than the term schizophrenia; (2) if there are differences in attitudes to the different terminology across countries with different cultures and (3) whether clinical training has an impact in reducing stigma. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional survey that examined the attitudes of medical students towards schizophrenia and the alternative subgroups. SETTING: The study was conducted across eight sites: (1) University of Southampton, UK; (2) All India Institute of Medical Science, India; (3) Rowan University, USA; (4) Peshawar Medical College, Pakistan; (5) Capital Medical University, China; (6) College of Medicine and Medical sciences, Bahrain; (7) Queens University, Kingston, Canada and (8) University of Cape Town, South Africa. METHOD: This study extended an initial pilot conducted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists on the term schizophrenia and psychosis subgroups to assess whether the subgroup terminology might have an effect on the attitudes of a convenience sample of medical students from eight different countries and potentially play a role in reducing stigmatisation. RESULTS: 1873 medical students completed a questionnaire recording their attitudes to schizophrenia and the psychosis subgroups. A reduction in negative perceptions were found for the psychosis subgroups, especially for the stress sensitivity psychosis and anxiety psychosis subgroups. Negative perceptions were found for drug-related psychosis. Participants who had undergone clinical training had overall positive attitudes. Differences across different countries were found. CONCLUSION: The attitudes towards psychosis subgroups used in this study have shown mixed results and variation across countries. Further research is warranted to investigate acceptability of terminology. Methods of reducing stigma are discussed in line with the findings. ETHICS: The study received ethical approval from ERGO (Ethics and Research Governance Online; ID: 15972) and subsequently from the ethics committee at each site.

Quality assurance of approved out of programme psychiatry training and research over the past 5 years.

Aims and method This paper intends to analyse the number of applications, trainee demographic and approval rate of those applying for out of programme training (OOPT) or out of programme research (OOPR) between January 2008 and April 2013 using the committee's anonymised database. We also describe the process of application and approval by the Quality Assurance Committee. Results There were 90 applications, including 10 resubmissions during the 64-month period. Most applicants (77%) were higher trainees; 53% of applicants were from the London deanery; 60% of applications were for research posts and higher degrees (OOPR). Overall, 64% were approved by the committee: 70% for OOPRs and 53% for OOPTs. Clinical implications This paper shows with transparency the breakdown of applications to the Quality Assurance Committee. Around two-thirds of applications to the committee are supported (64%). Relatively few psychiatry trainees (2.5%) have applied for an OOPT or an OOPR over the past 5 years.

Exit examination: a survey of UK psychiatrists' views.

Aims and method The Royal College of Psychiatrists is considering how best to introduce a post-MRCPsych-examination assessment ('exit examination') in anticipation of external pressures to ensure patient safety through the use of such assessments. The Psychiatric Trainees' Committee conducted an online survey to gather the views of psychiatrists regarding the possible format and content of this examination in the hope that this information can be used to design a satisfactory assessment. Results Of the 2082 individuals who started the survey, 1735 completed all sections (83.3%). Participants included consultants and trainees from a range of subspecialties. There was general agreement that the content and structure of the exit examination should include assessment of clinical and communication skills. Clinical implications UK psychiatrists believe that an exit assessment should focus on clinical and communication skills. It should assess both generic and subspecialty-specific competencies and incorporate a mixture of assessment techniques.

Evaluation of the effects of venlafaxine and pregabalin on the carbon dioxide inhalation models of Generalised Anxiety Disorder and panic.

Previous studies have shown that subjective and objective symptoms of anxiety induced by 7.5% CO(2) inhalation can be attenuated by anxiolytics such as lorazepam and, to a lesser extent, paroxetine. Venlafaxine and pregabalin, two other licensed treatments for Generalised Anxiety Disorder, were used to further investigate the 7.5% and 35% CO(2) models of anxiety in healthy volunteers. Fifty-four participants were randomised to receive either placebo, venlafaxine or pregabalin. Study treatments were dosed incrementally over a three week period, to reach daily doses of 150 mg venlafaxine and 200mg pregabalin by the CO(2) challenge test day. Participants inhaled air 7.5% CO(2) for 20 minutes (single-blind presentation), and a non-blinded single vital capacity of 35% CO(2). Subjective ratings were recorded before and after each inhalation. Both 7.5% and 35% CO(2) inhalations produced the expected effects of increased ratings of symptoms of panic and anxiety, with increased blood pressure and heart rate. No significant treatment effects were found, although there were trends towards a reduction in feeling tense and nervous by both drugs compared with placebo during the 7.5% CO(2) challenge, and a reduction in alertness generally in the venlafaxine group compared with the pregabalin group. In contrast with the clear anxiolytic effects of benzodiazepines reported in several previous CO(2) studies, these findings suggest that the anxiogenic effects of CO(2) challenges are not significantly influenced by these serotonergic and GABAergic anxiolytics. This may be due to a lack of sensitivity of the CO(2) challenges in healthy volunteers to these drug types.