Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T11:58:12.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Audit on Telephone Referrals to Beechcroft, a Step 5 Regional Child and Adolescent Mental Health Inpatient Unit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Andrew Breakwell*
Affiliation:
Beechcroft, Belfast, United Kingdom
Claire Kelly
Affiliation:
Beechcroft, Belfast, United Kingdom
Lucy Brakspear
Affiliation:
Beechcroft, Belfast, United Kingdom
Owen McMurray
Affiliation:
Beechcroft, Belfast, United Kingdom
Karolina Szczygiel
Affiliation:
Beechcroft, Belfast, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

To audit telephone referrals to Beechcroft inpatient unit.

Beechcroft inpatient unit is a step 5 regional child and adolescent mental health inpatient unit in Belfast. It receives a large volume of referrals from across all five health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland. The process of referral to Beechcroft can vary between trusts and clinicians; the majority of admissions are emergency. The demand for beds has risen by 30% since 2019. Emergency admissions are commonly telephone referrals whilst others submit written referrals. The referrals process is managed by the ward sisters, as there is no bed manager post. Referrals are discussed with a consultant psychiatrist.

Referrals received often lack key clinical information, which makes decisions around appropriateness of admission or prioritising multiple referrals difficult. Furthermore, as the admitting doctor relies on this information, missing clinical information could result in patient safety issues.

Methods

24 telephone referrals were recorded between August to December 2023. 5 referrals were excluded for either no request for a bed (3) or telephone update following previous written referral (2). 19 telephone referrals were analysed across 7 different criteria as below, based on necessary information.

Criteria 1 Patient identifiable information

Criteria 2 Source of referral/referrer details

Criteria 3 Current location of patient

Criteria 4 Legal status

Criteria 5 Presenting symptoms

Criteria 6 Working diagnosis

Criteria 7 Risks warranting admission

Results

Yes    No   %Yes

Criteria 1   19    0   100

Criteria 2    19    0   100

Criteria 3   13    6   68

Criteria 4    14   5   74

Criteria 5   18   1    95

Criteria 6    2   17   11

Criteria 7   15   4   79

Total     100   33   75.2

Patient identifiable information and source was documented in all referrals. Only 10% of referrals included a working diagnosis. Location of patient, legal status and risks warranting admission were documented between 68 and 78%.

Conclusion

Crucial information such as working diagnosis was missing in 90%. Risks or legal status missing in up to a quarter of referrals. This has an impact on timely access, bed flow and potentially patient safety.

A need for improvement in receiving and documenting telephone referrals has been identified. To aid improvement in patient safety and flow, a bed manager for in hours has now been appointed. A standardised proforma for recording data will be developed by inpatient staff in collaboration with community staff to include the above criteria. A re-audit will be carried out following these service improvements.

Type
5 Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.