Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:24:48.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Audit of Non-Pharmacological and Rapid Tranquilisation Practices in Managing Distress Among Older Adults: A Comparative Study in Inverness Hospitals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Praveen Kumar*
Affiliation:
New Craig's Psychiatric Hospital, Inverness, United Kingdom
Adam Wild
Affiliation:
Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, United Kingdom
Fiona Howells
Affiliation:
Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, United Kingdom
Tharini Kumar
Affiliation:
South Tipperary General Hospital, Clonmel, Ireland
Phoebe Williams
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, 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

This audit evaluates the adherence of nursing and medical staff to local protocols for managing distress in older adults (aged >65 years) using non-pharmacological approaches and rapid tranquilisation (RT) in a psychiatric hospital's dementia ward, an acute medical unit, and a geriatric ward in a general hospital. We hypothesize that operational differences between these wards significantly influence the management of older adult patients.

Methods

Conducted from September 17 to October 8, 2022, in hospitals in Inverness, Scotland, this study reviewed 322 case notes and drug charts from patients who underwent RT in three wards: the Old Age Psychiatric Ward, Acute Medical Unit (AMU), and Geriatric Ward. Focus groups and informal discussions with ward nurses and junior doctors were organized to understand their perspectives on handling distress in dementia patients, with an emphasis on de-escalation techniques.

Data focused on key parameters:

  • Patient Diagnosis and Legal Status.

  • Administration Details: including initiation time, de-escalation techniques, consultation with senior doctors, and details of drugs administered (route, drug, and dosage).

Results

Staff nurses in all wards prioritized non-pharmacological de-escalation techniques, such as recognizing early signs of agitation, employing distraction and calming tactics, and acknowledging the importance of personal space, even in the face of staffing challenges and high patient loads. These measures were consistently employed prior to considering RT, adhering to the local protocol. Physical restraint was employed only in scenarios where there was a risk to the patient or others, executed by personnel trained in managing violence and aggression.

Conversations with junior doctors, particularly in the AMU, revealed a limited understanding of the RT protocol, suggesting a need for enhanced training and awareness. Overall, the study indicates that while RT is regarded as a last resort after the failure of psychological and behavioral approaches, there is a clear necessity for further education and training to ensure the safe and effective administration of RT.

Conclusion

This audit demonstrates that despite the varying environments and pressures in the three wards, adherence to the local protocol for managing distress in older adults is largely effective, with a strong preference for non-pharmacological methods. The findings highlight the need for ongoing education and reinforcement of RT protocols, particularly among junior doctors, to ensure patient safety and adherence to best practices. The results suggest that with proper support and training, the use of RT can be a carefully controlled and beneficial tool in managing distress in older adult patients.

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.