Wael Y Khawagi1,2, Douglas T Steinke1, Joanne Nguyen1,3, Sarah Pontefract4, Richard N Keers1,3. 1. Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taif University, Taif, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 3. Pharmacy Department, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. 4. School of Pharmacy, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To develop a set of prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications, and to estimate the risk of harm associated with each indicator. METHOD: A modified two-stage electronic Delphi. The first stage consisted of two rounds in which 31 experts rated their agreement with a set of 101 potential mental health related prescribing safety indicators using a five-point scale and given the opportunity to suggest other indicators. Indicators that achieved 80% agreement were accepted. The second stage comprised a single round in which 29 members estimated the risk of harm for each accepted indicator by assessing the occurrence likelihood and outcome severity using two five-point scales. Indicators were considered high or extreme risk when at least 80% of participants rated each indicator as high or extreme. RESULTS: Seventy-five indicators were accepted in the first stage. Following the second stage, 42 (56%) were considered to be high or extreme risk for patient care. The 42 indicators comprised different types of hazardous prescribing, including drug-disease interactions (n = 12), drug-drug interactions (n = 9), inadequate monitoring (n = 5), inappropriate duration (n = 4), inappropriate dose (n = 4), omissions (n = 4), potentially inappropriate medications (n = 3) and polypharmacy (n = 1). These indicators also covered different mental health related medication classes, including antipsychotics (n = 14), mood stabilisers (n = 8), antidepressants (n = 6), sedative, hypnotics and anxiolytics (n = 6), anticholinergic (n = 6) and nonspecific psychotropics (n = 2). CONCLUSION: This study has developed the first suite of prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications, which could inform the development of future safety improvement initiatives and interventional studies.
AIM: To develop a set of prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications, and to estimate the risk of harm associated with each indicator. METHOD: A modified two-stage electronic Delphi. The first stage consisted of two rounds in which 31 experts rated their agreement with a set of 101 potential mental health related prescribing safety indicators using a five-point scale and given the opportunity to suggest other indicators. Indicators that achieved 80% agreement were accepted. The second stage comprised a single round in which 29 members estimated the risk of harm for each accepted indicator by assessing the occurrence likelihood and outcome severity using two five-point scales. Indicators were considered high or extreme risk when at least 80% of participants rated each indicator as high or extreme. RESULTS: Seventy-five indicators were accepted in the first stage. Following the second stage, 42 (56%) were considered to be high or extreme risk for patient care. The 42 indicators comprised different types of hazardous prescribing, including drug-disease interactions (n = 12), drug-drug interactions (n = 9), inadequate monitoring (n = 5), inappropriate duration (n = 4), inappropriate dose (n = 4), omissions (n = 4), potentially inappropriate medications (n = 3) and polypharmacy (n = 1). These indicators also covered different mental health related medication classes, including antipsychotics (n = 14), mood stabilisers (n = 8), antidepressants (n = 6), sedative, hypnotics and anxiolytics (n = 6), anticholinergic (n = 6) and nonspecific psychotropics (n = 2). CONCLUSION: This study has developed the first suite of prescribing safety indicators related to mental health disorders and medications, which could inform the development of future safety improvement initiatives and interventional studies.
Authors: Wael Y Khawagi; Douglas Steinke; Matthew J Carr; Alison K Wright; Darren M Ashcroft; Anthony Avery; Richard Neil Keers Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 7.418
Authors: Aseel S Abuzour; Esnath Magola-Makina; James Dunlop; Amber O'Brien; Wael Y Khawagi; Darren M Ashcroft; Petra Brown; Richard N Keers Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-10-29 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Ghadah H Alshehri; Darren M Ashcroft; Joanne Nguyen; Mark Hann; Richard Jones; Kristof Seaton; Graham Newton; Richard N Keers Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: João Pedro Aguiar; Catarina Bernardo; João Gama Marques; Hubert Leufkens; Filipa Alves da Costa Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 4.157