Prescribing and deprescribing trends in schizophrenia: An overview of inpatients in Belgium and in the Canadian province of Québec.

Although switching to antipsychotic monotherapy improves patient outcomes in schizophrenia, antipsychotic deprescribing is rarely performed, and its use varies between countries, as do psychotropic prescribing patterns. This study aimed to determine factors associated with antipsychotic deprescribing at discharge after a psychiatric hospitalization and to compare psychotropic prescribing patterns between Belgium and Québec, Canada. Data on adult inpatients with schizophrenia were collected retrospectively in seven hospitals. At discharge, the number of antipsychotics had decreased in 22.2% of the 63 Canadian patients and 9.9% of the 516 Belgian patients. A number of factors increased the likelihood of antipsychotic deprescribing: a hospitalization in the Canadian hospital (aOR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.48-11.5), living in a residential facility (aOR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.05-4.39), ≥2 previous antipsychotic trials (aOR = 15.38, 95% CI 3.62-65.36), having an antipsychotic side effect (aOR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.01-3.44) and being in a general hospital (aOR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.09-4.75). Patients on a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.26-0.98), with prior clozapine use (aOR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.13-0.95), greater antipsychotic exposure (aOR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.2-0.61) and more hypno-sedatives (aOR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.98), were less likely to be deprescribed. Specific deprescribing interventions could target patients who are less likely to be deprescribed.

Impact of a Caffeine Restriction Policy on Inpatients With Schizophrenia: A Pre-Post Comparison Using Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Caffeine is the most commonly used psychostimulant worldwide. Although its large intake is suspected to worsen psychotic symptoms because of increasing dopamine neurotransmission, schizophrenic patients are heavier caffeine consumers than the general population. This study aims to assess the impact of a caffeine restriction policy in a psychiatric hospital on patient psychopathology, hospitalization characteristics, and psychotropic prescribing patterns. METHODS: It is a retrospective cross-sectional study based on electronic health records of a psychiatric hospital in the French-speaking area of Belgium. Two different periods were compared, the first (n = 142), in 2017, when caffeine was available in the institution and the second (n = 119), between November 2018 and November 2019 after the restriction of access to caffeine was implemented. Adult inpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder admitted for an acute hospitalization were included. Antipsychotic exposure, benzodiazepine daily dose, Global Assessment of Functioning scores, length of hospital stay, and some other factors were tested for their potential association with the decaffeinated period. RESULTS: After adjusting for potential confounders, reduced caffeine availability inside the hospital was significantly associated with higher Global Assessment of Functioning scores at discharge (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.77-4.62) and shorter hospital stays (aOR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.47-0.99) but was not associated with change in antipsychotic exposure at discharge (aOR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.64-1.7) or benzodiazepine daily dose (aOR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.61-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: Limiting access to caffeine in psychiatric hospitals is a simple and inexpensive intervention that should be promoted, especially for patients with schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy and clozapine prescribing patterns: evolution and correlates before and after a psychiatric hospitalisation.

Background: Antipsychotic polypharmacy (APP) prescribing and clozapine underuse are considered inappropriate prescribing in schizophrenia. Psychiatric hospitalisations may be suitable occasions to re-evaluate patient pharmacotherapy and to switch to monotherapy. Objectives: To explore the evolution of APP and other psychotropic prescribing patterns during psychiatric hospitalisations, to detect characteristics associated with APP on admission and at discharge, and to examine clozapine prescribing patterns. Design: We performed a retrospective observational study based on electronic health records. Methods: Data on adult inpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders were collected retrospectively from 6 Belgian hospitals in 2020-2021. Results: Of the 516 patients included, APP prescribing increased significantly from 47.9% on hospital admission to 59.1% at discharge. On admission and at discharge, APP was associated with prior clozapine use (ORadmission = 2.53, CI = 1.1-5.84, ORdischarge = 11.01, CI = 4.45-27.28), treatment with a first-generation antipsychotic (ORadmission = 26.79, CI = 13.08-54.86, ORdischarge = 25.2, CI = 12.2-52.04), increased antipsychotic exposure (ORadmission = 8.93, CI = 5.13-15.56, ORdischarge = 19.89, CI = 10-39.54), and a greater number of hypno-sedatives (ORadmission = 1.88, CI = 1.23-2.88, ORdischarge = 4.18, CI = 2.53-6.91). APP was negatively associated with involuntary admission (ORadmission = 0.31, CI = 0.14-0.7, ORdischarge = 0.3, CI = 0.13-0.68). When using an alternative definition of monotherapy (i.e. including patients with an add-on low-dose antipsychotic for sleep disorders), alcohol use disorder (ORadmission = 0.26, CI = 0.13-0.54) and higher age (ORdischarge = 0.53, CI = 0.29-0.95) were negatively associated with APP, and living in a residential facility (ORdischarge = 2.39 CI = 1.21-4.71) and a higher daily dosage of benzodiazepines during the stay (ORdischarge = 1.32 CI = 1.03-1.69) increased the odds of being discharged on APP. On admission, 9.3% of patients were being treated with clozapine. Although 28.1% of patients were eligible for clozapine treatment, only 11% of patients were discharged with a clozapine prescription. For 7 of the 10 patients with a new clozapine prescription, it was directly prescribed in combination with another antipsychotic, without a prior trial of clozapine monotherapy. Conclusion: Suboptimal prescriptions of antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia persist after psychiatric hospitalisations and are associated with identifiable characteristics.

Optimizing pharmacists' detection of prescribing errors: Comparison of on-ward and central pharmacy services.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Prescribing errors are the leading cause of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Pharmaceutical validation, defined as the review of drug orders by a pharmacist, associated with clinical decision support (CDS) systems, significantly reduces these errors and adverse drug events. In Belgium, because clinical pharmacy services have limited public financial support, most pharmaceutical validations are performed at the central pharmacy instead of on-ward, by hospital pharmacists doing dispensing activities. In that context, we aimed at evaluating whether the strategy of CDS-guided central validation was the most appropriate method to improve the quality and safety of medicines' use compared to an on-ward pharmaceutical validation. METHODS: Our retrospective observational study was conducted in a Belgian tertiary care hospital, in 2018-2019. Data were extracted from our validation software and pharmacists' charts. The outcomes of the study were the number of pharmaceutical interventions due to the detection of prescribing errors, reasons for interventions, their acceptance rate and their potential clinical impact (according to two blinded experts) in the central pharmacy and on-ward validation groups. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Despite the use of the same CDS, a pharmaceutical intervention following the detection of a prescribing error was made for 2.9% (20/698) of central group patients and 13.3% (93/701) of on-ward patients (χ2  = 49.97, p < 0.001). Interventions made at the central pharmacy (n = 20) mostly relied on CDS-alerts (i.e. drug-drug interaction [25%] or overdosing [20%]) while interventions made on-ward (n = 93) were also for pharmacotherapy optimization (i.e. no valid indication [25%] or inappropriate drug's choice [11%]). The on-ward validation group showed a higher acceptance rate compared to the central group (84% and 65%, respectively [Fisher's test, p = 0.053]). Proportions of interventions with significant or very significant clinical impact were similar between the two groups but as fewer interventions were made centrally, a significant proportion of errors were probably not detected by the central validation. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: On-ward pharmaceutical validation leads to a higher rate of prescribing error detection. Pharmaceutical interventions made by on-ward pharmacists are also better accepted and more relevant, going further than CDS-alerts.