Agitated patients constitute 10% of all emergency psychiatric treatment. Management guidelines, the preferred treatment of clinicians differ in opinion and practice. In Lebanon, the use of the triple therapy haloperidol plus promethazine plus chlorpromazine (HPC) is frequently used but no studies involving this combination exists.

A pragmatic randomised open trial (September 2018–July 2019) in the Lebanese Psychiatric Hospital of the Cross in Beirut Lebanon involving 100 people requiring urgent intramuscular sedation due to aggressive behaviour were given intramuscular chlorpromazine 100 mg plus haloperidol 5 mg plus promethazine 25 mg (HPC) or intramuscular haloperidol 5 mg plus promethazine 25 mg

Primary outcome data were available for 94 (94%) people. People allocated to the haloperidol plus promethazine (HP) group showed no clear difference at 20 min compared with patients allocated to the HPC group [relative risk (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47–1.50].

Neither intervention consistently impacted the outcome of ‘calm’, or ‘asleep’ and had no discernible effect on the use of restraints, use of additional drugs or recurrence. If clinicians are faced with uncertainty on which of the two intervention combinations to use, the simpler HP is much more widely tested and the addition of chlorpromazine adds no clear benefit with a risk of additional adverse effects.

Non-pharmacological interventions preferably precede pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. Reviews of pharmacological interventions remain descriptive or compare only one compound with several other compounds. The goal of this study is to compute a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect on restoring calmness after a pharmacological intervention, so a more precise recommendation is possible.

A search in Pubmed and Embase was done to isolate RCT’s considering pharmacological interventions in acute agitation. The outcome is reaching calmness within maximum of 2 h, assessed by the psychometric scales of PANSS-EC, CGI or ACES. Also the percentages of adverse effects was assessed.

Fifty-three papers were included for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Most frequent studied drug is olanzapine. Changes on PANNS-EC and ACES at 2 h showed the strongest changes for haloperidol plus promethazine, risperidon, olanzapine, droperidol and aripiprazole. However, incomplete data showed that the effect of risperidon is overestimated. Adverse effects are most prominent for haloperidol and haloperidol plus lorazepam.

Olanzapine, haloperidol plus promethazine or droperidol are most effective and safe for use as rapid tranquilisation. Midazolam sedates most quickly. But due to increased saturation problems, midazolam is restricted to use within an emergency department of a general hospital.

PRN (as required) medication is commonly used in inpatient psychiatry but little is known about staff opinions concerning its use.

To explore views about PRN medication among nurses and psychiatrists working in PICUs or secure care at a charitable hospital.

A structured questionnaire with visual analogue scales was used to examine staff views about PRN medication. Participants were: 21 PICU nurses, 20 nurses working on medium secure admission units (MSAUs) and 27 psychiatrists. Inquiry was made about preferences and avoidance of PRN drugs and when PRN administration becomes rapid tranquillisation (RT).

Nurses working in PICUs and MSAUs held similar views about PRN medication. Nurses were more in favour of PRN medication than psychiatrists, whereas psychiatrists felt more strongly that PRN sedation was sometimes over-used. PICU staff favoured promethazine whereas non-PICU staff preferred lorazepam/lorazepam and haloperidol combined. There was no consensus as to when PRN administration becomes RT.

Nurses hold more positive views about PRN sedation than psychiatrists. Despite the ECG requirement, many staff favour haloperidol. The NICE definition of RT was not quoted by most participants. RT and PRN medication is a grey area which deserves further exploration.

Rapid tranquillisation (RT) is a procedure that carries both medication and non-medication related risks. It has also recently been targeted by the NHS Litigation Authority, with an entire risk management standard devoted solely to this intervention. In this study, we aim to quantify the risk associated with RT, by looking at medication patient safety incidents (PSIs) reported by all NHS healthcare providers over the course of one year.

Medication PSIs relating to RT that occurred between 1 August 2010 and 31 July 2011 were extracted from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) and analysed.

The number of PSIs extracted from the NRLS was low and no incidents related to adverse effects or harm encountered post administration of RT. These results are not generalisable as this study describes one search strategy of what is a fragmented system for reporting RT related PSIs.

This study indicates that the task of examining RT related PSIs in their entirety would be neither easy not simple. There needs to be a more relevant, reliable and robust system for reporting incidents related to RT.

The use of additional sedative psychotropic medication to calm agitated or aggressive patients is known as rapid tranquillisation (RT). Several studies of RT practice have been conducted in psychiatric intensive care units (PICUs) and acute psychiatric settings.

We carried out a cross-sectional survey of the use of parental sedation in an English secure hospital using data from medication charts and case notes.

We studied the medication charts of 316 patients and found 203 incidents (all involving intramuscular route) of parenteral sedation involving just 35 patients. The vast majority (30; 85.7%) of those administered parenteral sedation were female and most (23; 65.7%) had emotionally unstable personality disorder. The most common indication was self-harm (44; 21.7%). In 24 (11.8%) instances the patient had requested an injection. A single drug was administered in 159 (78.3%) cases. The most commonly administered drug was lorazepam (152 cases) followed by haloperidol (69) and olanzapine (21). Case note documentation was frequently inadequate and in very few cases was there evidence of physical monitoring.

The use of parenteral sedation was rather different from that previously described in PICUs. Hospital policy and NICE guidance were not always being followed. Measures to rectify these deficits are being taken.

Rapid tranquillisation (RT) is a high risk clinical intervention in terms of potential physical health complications. There has been no published work in the UK to survey nationally whether standards for post RT physical monitoring (as set out in organisation's RT documents) are being adequately audited.

To review current auditing of RT practice in England, with particular emphasis on examination of post RT physical monitoring.

A scrutiny of evidence provided by English NHS mental health trusts to illustrate auditing of adult RT documents.

Fifty-eight mental health trusts in England were contacted. Less than one-third could provide evidence of an audit of post RT physical health monitoring. These audits were variable with respect to what aspect of physical health monitoring they focused on. When results of all audits were combined, it revealed a concerning finding that basic physical observations and investigations were not performed consistently following RT.

The current paucity of trust audits of post RT physical monitoring and the poor practice observed in those audits could reflect a lack of clarity in both trust and national guidelines, as well as poor clinical practice. Given the risks to a patient's physical health associated with RT it is essential to ensure high quality care in this area.

Despite not being underpinned by a strong evidence base, rapid tranquillisation is frequently the intervention of choice for dealing with violent and aggressive behaviour in psychiatric hospitals. This is the second of a two-part review of recommendations set out in UK trusts' adult rapid tranquillisation documents. In this article we focus on the drugs recommended, their routes of administration and clinical parameters influencing their use.

A review of adult rapid tranquillisation documents currently in use in NHS or HSC trusts providing adult mental health services in the UK.

A total of 45 rapid tranquillisation documents met the inclusion criteria and were examined. Sixteen drugs were recommended, via four separate routes of administration. Beyond the use of oral and IM lorazepam, haloperidol and olanzapine there was no consensus as to which drugs should be used for rapid tranquillisation in adults. Eleven clinical decision-making parameters were identified that influenced the selection of drugs for IM administration. However, the wide variation and sometimes absence of advice surrounding these parameters was concerning.

The results of this review demonstrate that there is a need to rationalise rapid tranquillisation and develop consensus guidelines that allow for evidence based decision-making tools.