Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T08:10:40.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Audit of shared-care lithium monitoring in a large rural GP practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2021

Thomas Cranshaw*
Affiliation:
Cumbria, Northumberland Tyne and Wear Foundation Trust
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 compare monitoring of lithium treatment with shared care lithium monitoring agreements in a large rural GP practice.

Background

A ‘near miss’ event with a patient with drug induced long QT syndrome highlighted a need for an audit of lithium monitoring at a large rural GP practice.

The practice had entered into shared-care monitoring agreements with the local mental health care trust. Under these agreements, responsibility for physical monitoring of lithium treatment was assumed by the practice.

Method

Using audit functions built into the IT system, all patients at the practice who were currently prescribed lithium-containing medications were identified (n = 28). Individual monitoring standards were determined for each patient based on the shared care agreement. These varied depending on age and comorbidity. Monitoring data obtained from medical records was compared against the individualised monitoring requirement.

Result

The key finding was that 26% of patients for whom annual ECGs were indicated according to the shared care agreement had received an ECG in the past year. 78% of patients had a lithium level recorded in the previous 3 months. 81% of patients had a renal function test within their monitoring requirements. 52% of patients had lipid measurement in the previous year.

Conclusion

There is a great degree of heterogeneity in the extent to which shared care monitoring agreements are achieved. It is noted that those standards to which a Quality Outcome Framework incentive applied had a greater chance of being met. Worryingly, the QOF statements relating to lithium treatment have now been retired as of April 2019. It is suggested that psychiatrists are aware of the challenges primary care faces when monitoring lithium treatment.

Type
Service Evaluation
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), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.