ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Improving the quality and reliability of clinical reviews of psychotropic PRN medicines in a large English mental health Trust.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsychotropic medicines are commonly prescribed as when required (PRN) prescriptions for inpatients for anxiety, insomnia or as part of a strategy to de-escalate situations that may lead to violence and aggression. While these medicines can provide benefit, safeguards need to be in place to ensure they are regularly reviewed and not overused. AIM AND METHODOLOGY: To (1) establish baseline practice around the clinical review of psychotropic PRN medicines for inpatients and (2) improve clinical practice around the clinical review of PRN medicines from baseline and the end of the improvement programme.Centrally coordinated, locally driven, improvement programme taking place over a 5-month period between February and June 2024. The programme employed a learning system approach to enable doctors to test change ideas and share areas of good practice as they sought to understand the problem, test different approaches and focus on holding the gains.
findings21 wards participated and at an aggregate level achieved both aims with the recording of clinical reviews in the notes increasing from 89% to 90% and the quality of what was recorded in the notes increasing from 51% to 72%. There were signs of increased adjustments to psychotropic PRN medicines during the programme and in some wards decreased rates of psychotropic PRN administration to patients. However, while overall levels of psychotropic PRN medicine administration benchmarked lower than those reported in other studies, there were significant differences in clinical reviews, prescription and administration rates between a group of wards that fully engaged and partially engaged in the improvement programme.
conclusionsEmploying a learning system approach helped create a context suitable for improvement and led to improvements in the review of psychotropic PRN medicines. Exploring the variation between wards in fully engaged and partially engaged groups of wards could be a next step for the Trust.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.