Better care: reducing length of stay and bed occupancy on an older adult psychiatric ward.

BACKGROUND: Length of stay and bed occupancy are important indicators of quality of care. Admissions are longer on older adult psychiatric wards as a result of physical comorbidity and complex care needs. The recommended bed occupancy is 85%; levels of 95% or higher are associated with violent incidents on inpatient wards. METHODS: We aimed to reduce length of stay and bed occupancy on Leadenhall ward, a functional older adult psychiatric ward serving a population of just under 40 000 older adults in two of the most deprived areas of the UK.At baseline in October 2015, the average length of stay was 47 days, and bed occupancy was at 77%. We approached the problem using quality improvement methods, established a project team and proceeded to test a number of changes over time in line with the driver diagram we produced. RESULTS: In 12 months, length of stay was reduced from an average 47 to an average 30 days and bed occupancy from 77% to 54%.At the end of 2016, the closure of some beds effected this calculation and we added an additional outcome measure of occupied bed days (OBD) better to assess the impact of the work. OBD data show a decrease over the course of the project from 251 to 194 bed days (a reduction of 23%). CONCLUSION: The most effective interventions to address length of stay and bed occupancy on an older adult functional mental health ward were the daily management round and the high-level management focus on longer-stay patients. The work depended on an effective community team and on the support of the quality improvement programme in the trust, which have led to sustained improvements.

Amisulpride for very late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis: the ATLAS three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Very late-onset (aged ≥ 60 years) schizophrenia-like psychosis (VLOSLP) occurs frequently but no placebo-controlled, randomised trials have assessed the efficacy or risks of antipsychotic treatment. Most patients are not prescribed treatment. OBJECTIVES: The study investigated whether or not low-dose amisulpride is superior to placebo in reducing psychosis symptoms over 12 weeks and if any benefit is maintained by continuing treatment thereafter. Treatment safety and cost-effectiveness were also investigated. DESIGN: Three-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Participants who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. SETTING: Secondary care specialist old age psychiatry services in 25 NHS mental health trusts in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Patients meeting diagnostic criteria for VLOSLP and scoring > 30 points on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to three arms in a two-stage trial: (1) 100 mg of amisulpride in both stages, (2) amisulpride then placebo and (3) placebo then amisulpride. Treatment duration was 12 weeks in stage 1 and 24 weeks (later reduced to 12) in stage 2. Participants, investigators and outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were psychosis symptoms assessed by the BPRS and trial treatment discontinuation for non-efficacy. Secondary outcomes were extrapyramidal symptoms measured with the Simpson-Angus Scale, quality of life measured with the World Health Organization's quality-of-life scale, and cost-effectiveness measured with NHS, social care and carer work loss costs and EuroQol-5 Dimensions. RESULTS: A total of 101 participants were randomised. Ninety-two (91%) participants took the trial medication, 59 (64%) completed stage 1 and 33 (56%) completed stage 2 treatment. Despite suboptimal compliance, improvements in BPRS scores at 12 weeks were 7.7 points (95% CI 3.8 to 11.5 points) greater with amisulpride than with placebo (11.9 vs. 4.2 points; p = 0.0002). In stage 2, BPRS scores improved by 1.1 point in those who continued with amisulpride but deteriorated by 5.2 points in those who switched from amisulpride to placebo, a difference of 6.3 points (95% CI 0.9 to 11.7 points; p = 0.024). Fewer participants allocated to the amisulpride group stopped treatment because of non-efficacy in stages 1 (p = 0.01) and 2 (p = 0.031). The number of patients stopping because of extrapyramidal symptoms and other side effects did not differ significantly between groups. Amisulpride treatment in the base-case analyses was associated with non-significant reductions in combined NHS, social care and unpaid carer costs and non-significant reductions in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in both stages. Including patients who were intensive users of inpatient services in sensitivity analyses did not change the QALY result but resulted in placebo dominance in stage 1 and significant reductions in NHS/social care (95% CI -£8923 to -£122) and societal costs (95% CI -£8985 to -£153) for those continuing with amisulpride. LIMITATIONS: The original recruitment target of 300 participants was not achieved and compliance with trial medication was highly variable. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose amisulpride is effective and well tolerated as a treatment for VLOSLP, with benefits maintained by prolonging treatment. Potential adverse events include clinically significant extrapyramidal symptoms and falls. FUTURE WORK: Trials should examine the longer-term effectiveness and safety of antipsychotic treatment in this patient group, and assess interventions to improve their appreciation of potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment and compliance with prescribed medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45593573 and EudraCT2010-022184-35. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Antipsychotic treatment of very late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis (ATLAS): a randomised, controlled, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Very late (aged ≥60 years) onset schizophrenia-like psychosis occurs frequently but no placebo-controlled, randomised trials have assessed the efficacy and risks of antipsychotic treatment. We investigated whether low-dose amisulpride (100 mg daily) is superior to placebo in reducing psychosis symptoms over 12 weeks and whether any benefit is maintained by continuing treatment after 12 weeks. METHODS: The ATLAS double-blind controlled trial enrolled participants from 25 old age psychiatry services in the UK. Eligible participants (ie, those with a diagnosis of very late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis and a Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS] score of ≥30, without cognitive impairment) were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three groups in a two-stage trial: amisulpride in stage 1 and 2 (group A), amisulpride then placebo (group B), or placebo then amisulpride (group C). Treatment (100 mg oral amisulpride daily vs placebo) was given for 12 weeks in stage 1 and, initially, 24 weeks then reduced to 12 weeks in stage 2. Participants, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Primary outcomes were psychosis symptoms assessed by the BPRS at 4, 12, and 24, or 36 weeks, and trial treatment discontinuation for non-efficacy. The primary, secondary, and safety endpoints were all analysed in participants given at least one dose of study treatment in modified intention-to-treat analyses. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2010-022184-35, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN45593573. FINDINGS: Between Sept 27, 2012, and June 28, 2016, we recruited 101 participants. 92 (91%) of 101 participants took trial medication, of whom 59 (64%) completed stage 1 and 34 (58%) of these 59 participants completed stage 2 treatment. Despite suboptimal compliance, improvements in BPRS scores at 12 weeks were 7·7 points (95% CI 3·8-11·5, p=0·0002) greater with amisulpride (mean 11·9 points [SE 1·3]) than with placebo (4·2 points [1·0]). In stage 2, BPRS scores improved by a mean of 1·1 points (1·6) from 12 weeks to the final assessment in those who continued amisulpride but deteriorated by 5·2 points (2·0) in those who switched from amisulpride to placebo (difference 6·3 points [95% CI 0·9-11·7], p=0·024). Fewer participants who were allocated amisulpride than placebo stopped treatment because of non-efficacy in stage 1 (p=0·010) and stage 2 (p=0·031). Serious adverse events were reported more frequently in the amisulpride group than in the placebo group in stage 1 (p=0·057) and stage 2 (p=0·19). The most common serious adverse events were infection (five patients in the amisulpride group, three in the placebo group) and extrapyramidal side-effects (three patients in the amisulpride group, none in the placebo group). Five patients died during the study, one from a gastric ulcer bleed before treatment started (group B), two while taking stage 2 treatment (one in group A and one in group C), and two who stopped trial treatment in stage 1 and died many weeks later (one in group B and one in group C). No deaths were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Low-dose amisulpride is effective and well tolerated as a treatment for very late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis, with benefits maintained by prolonging treatment. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Low stimulus environments: reducing noise levels in continuing care.

In the low stimulus environment project, we aimed to reduce the levels of intrusive background noise on an older adult mental health ward, combining a very straightforward measure on decibel levels with a downstream measure of reduced distress and agitation as expressed in incidents of violence. This project on reducing background noise levels on older adult wards stemmed from work the team had done on reducing levels of violence and aggression. We approached the problem using quality improvement methods. Reducing harm to patients and staff is a strategic aim of our Trust and in our efforts we were supported by the Trust's extensive programme of quality improvement, including training and support provided by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and the trust's own Quality Improvement team. Prior to the project we were running a weekly multi-disciplinary quality improvement group on the ward. We established from this a sub-group to address the specific problem of noise levels and invited carers of people with dementia on our ward to the group. The project was led by nursing staff. We used a noise meter app readily downloadable from the internet to monitor background noise levels on the ward and establish a baseline measure. As a group we used a driver diagram to identify an overall aim and a clear understanding of the major factors that would drive improvements. We also used a staff and carer survey to identify further areas to work on. Change ideas that came from staff and carers included the use of the noise meter to track and report back on noise levels, the use of posters to remind staff about noise levels, the introduction of a visual indication of current noise levels (the Yacker Tracker), the addition of relaxing background music, and adaptations to furniture and environment. We tested many of these over the course of nine months in 2015, using the iterative learning gained from multiple PDSA cycles. The specific aim was a decrease from above 60dB to below 50dB in background noise on the wards. Following our interventions, we have managed to decrease noise levels on the ward to 53dB on average. The success of this project to date has relied on the involvement of ward staff and carers - those most affected by the problem - in generating workable local solutions. As many of the change ideas amounted to harm free interventions it was easier for us to make a case to test them out in the real-life setting. Nevertheless we were surprised at how effective such seemingly simple ideas have been in improving the environment on the ward. We have incorporated the change ideas into routine practice and are advising other wards on similar projects.

Safer Wards: reducing violence on older people's mental health wards.

Through the Safer Wards project we aimed to reduce the number of incidents of physical violence on older people's mental health wards. This was done using quality improvement methods and supported by the Trust's extensive programme of quality improvement, including training provided by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Violence can be an indicator of unmet needs in this patient population, with a negative effect on patient care and staff morale. Reducing harm to patients and staff is a strategic aim of our Trust. We established a multi-disciplinary group who led on the project on each ward and used a Pareto diagram to establish the focus of our work. We established a dashboard of measures based on our incident reporting system Datix, including number of incidents of violence, days between incidents, days of staff sickness, days between staff injury, use of restraint, and use of rapid tranquilisation (the last two being balancing measures in the reduction of violence). Each team identified factors driving physical violence on the wards, under headings of unmet patient needs, staff needs and staff awareness, which included lack of activity and a safe and therapeutic environment. Using driver diagrams, we identified change ideas that included hourly rounding (proactive checks on patient well-being), the addition of sensory rooms, flexible leave for patients, and a structured activity programme. We also introduced exercise to music, therapeutic groups led by patients, and focused on discharge planning and pet therapy, each of which starting sequentially over the course of a one year period from late 2013 and subject to a cycle of iterative learning using PDSA methods. The specific aim was a 20% decrease in violent incidents on three wards in City and Hackney, and Newham. Following our interventions, days between violent incidents increased from an average of three to an average of six. Days between staff injury due to physical violence rose from an average of eight (one violent incident resulting in staff injury every eight days) to 22 (one incident every 22 days). Incidents of physical violence reduced from 63 in 2013 to 39 in 2014. We were also able to quantify reduced costs associated with reduction in violence. The success of this project in our view lay in the involvement of ward staff in understanding the problems and generating local solutions which were also broadly evidenced based. Patients were also closely involved in generating ideas. We are currently incorporating much of this work into routine practice in order to sustain improvement, as well as continuing to generate new ideas for further improvement while using the skills learnt in this process to address other problems.

Beliefs about medications predict adherence to antidepressants in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to treatment is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon. This study investigates the relationship between older depressed patients' adherence to antidepressants and their beliefs about and knowledge of the medication. METHODS: Assessment was undertaken of 108 outpatients over the age of 55 years diagnosed with depressive disorder and treated for at least four weeks with antidepressants. Adherence was assessed using two self-report measures: the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) and a Global Adherence Measure (GAM). Potential predictors of adherence investigated included sociodemographic, medication and illness variables. In addition, 33 carers were interviewed regarding general medication beliefs. RESULTS: 56% of patients reported 80% or higher adherence on the GAM. Sociodemographic variables were not associated with adherence on the MARS. Specific beliefs about medicines, such as "my health depends on antidepressants" (necessity) and being less worried about becoming dependant on antidepressants (concern) were highly correlated with adherence. General beliefs about medicines causing harm or being overprescribed, experiencing medication side-effects and severity of depression also correlated with poor adherence. Linear regression with the MARS as the dependent variable explained 44.3% of the variance and showed adherence to be higher in subjects with healthy specific beliefs who received more information about antidepressants and worse with depression severity and autonomic side-effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings strongly support a role for specific beliefs about medicines in adherence. Challenging patients' beliefs, providing information about treatment and discussing side-effects could improve adherence. Poor response to treatment and medication side-effects can indicate poor adherence and should be considered before switching medications.