Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:28:52.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Audit Reviewing the Completion and Quality of the Admission, Then Six Monthly ALL-Physical Health Assessments (A Six Monthly Health Check) on a Low Secure, Inpatient Forensic Psychiatric Ward in Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Elizabeth Vogel*
Affiliation:
University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Chichester, United Kingdom
Shumaila Asmat
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Chichester, United Kingdom
Benjamin Jones
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Chichester, United Kingdom
Moustafa Saoud
Affiliation:
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Chichester, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding 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

Background: It has long been known that having a Severe Mental Health Condition is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. In order to facilitate early intervention, NHS has implemented annual physical health reviews. Within Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust (SPFT), compliance with this is outlined within local guidance and an assessment on admission and thereafter six-monthly is mandatory and called ALL-Physical Health Assessment. Historically, completion of this has been poor and therefore, this audit has been done to review the quality of completion and whether ALL is UpToDate and implement changes to improve the care. The Categorisation of completion into green, amber, and red as errors are linked to potential harm to patient's care. The review of actions taken from areas highlighted as abnormal results.

Methods

This study was done within the setting of Pine Ward, a 17-bed male, inpatient, low-secure forensic psychiatric ward.

Data were collected in November 2022 by reviewing ALL-Physical Health Assessments (six-monthly physical health check) on Carenotes(an electronic record system) and evaluating the quality of completion by categorising it as green(no errors), amber(minor errors, potential for risk to patient care), and red(major error/ missing documentation, which can lead to serious harm). ALL has fourteen categories. Smoking, Diabetes, Cholesterol/HDL ratio, Blood pressure, Pulse, Body Mass Index, Diet, Exercise, Alcohol, Substance misuse, National screening programme, Sexual functioning, Oral health and QRISK. This was compared with the results from February 2022 ALL assessments.

Results

Of the 17 patients, 15(88%) had an ALL done in the last 6 months. When splitting completion of the ALL, 89.9% of completions were green, 4.6% amber and 5.5% red.

In February, overall 76.4% of patients had ALL done and 67.2% of completions were green, 15.5% amber and 17.2% were red.

Improvement was seen in QRISK, Alcohol, diet, and exercise status, as they were 100% documented in November whilst it was 70%, 58%, 82%, and 70% respectively in February. The diabetic and smoking status is now 82% and 88% whilst it was 58% and 76% in February.

Conclusion

This audit has highlighted that certain areas of the ALL that are not completed up to the standard expected. The importance of the assessment needs to be raised to trainees to allow for the best patient care. There is potential for harm to patients if the assessment is completed inaccurately or incorrectly.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.