Pro re nata medication for psychoses: the knowledge and beliefs of doctors and nurses

Objective: To examine the knowledge and beliefs of doctors and nurses in inpatient psychiatric units about pro re nata (PRN) (as needed) medications for psychotic disorders. Methods: Medical (n = 44) and nursing (n = 80) staff in two metropolitan public hospital units completed a structured questionnaire about their use of PRN psychotropic medications on one occasion during the four months from March-June 1999. Results: Nurses selected more indications for PRN antipsychotics than doctors (3.49 vs 2.72, p < 0.05), whereas doctors selected more indications for PRN benzodiazepines (3.77 vs 3.19, p < 0.05). The groups did not differ in the number of selected indications for using anticholinergics. For agitation, the majority of nurses viewed both benzodiazepines (56%) and antipsychotics (86%) as effective, with 60% preferring an antipsychotic. For the acute control of psychotic symptoms, 99% of nurses believed antipsychotics were effective and 58% benzodiazepines, with 87% preferring an antipsychotic. A large majority of doctors viewed both PRN benzodiazepines, 94% ,and antipsychotics, 81%, as effective for agitation, and 55% preferred to use a benzodiazepine. For psychotic symptoms, 80% believed PRN antipsychotics were effective, but only 32% viewed benzodiazepines as effective, and 64% preferred to use an antipsychotic. Nursing staff identified more non-pharmacological techniques for managing both agitation and psychotic symptoms and reported using these more often than doctors. Junior staff, both nursing and medical, had less knowledge of non-pharmacological alternatives to PRN medication than senior staff. Conclusions: Disparities existed between doctors and nurses views on the indications for PRN medication in the acute management of psychoses, thus it is important for doctors to specify indications when writing PRN prescriptions. Despite evidence for the safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines, there was widespread reluctance to use them as PRN medication in acute psychoses. Beliefs of some staff about PRN medications were at odds with the known properties of these medicines. Educational interventions for both nurses and doctors are required to achieve best practice in PRN medication.

Pro re nata medication for psychoses: an audit of practice in two metropolitan hospitals

Objective: To examine the use of pro re nata (PRN) (as needed) medication in hospitalized patients with psychotic disorders. Methods: Retrospective chart reviews were conducted at two large public psychiatry units situated in inner city general hospitals. Pro re nata medication prescription, administration and outcomes were examined during inpatient episodes of care for 184 consecutive admissions of patients diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. Patient demographics, diagnoses, and regularly prescribed medication were also recorded. All admissions were drawn from a three-month period from December 1998-February 1999. Results: The most prevalent diagnoses were schizophrenia related disorders (n = 111) and mania (n = 34). Substance use disorders (n = 49) were the most common comorbid dis-orders. Pro re nata medication was administered during the acute phase of 82% of admissions. Drugs prescribed Pro re nata were mostly typical antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and/or anti-cholinergics. Coprescription of typical antipsychotics PRN with regularly scheduled atypical antipsychotics was common (64%). Pro re nata medications accounted for 31% of the total antipsychotic dose and 28% of the total anxiolytic dose administered during acute treatment. Higher daily doses of PRN medication were given to manic patients, males, younger patients and those with substance use disorders. Pro re nata prescriptions usually specified a maximum daily dose (87%) but rarely gave indications for use (6%). Adminis-tration records frequently lacked a specified reason for use (48%) or a notation of outcome (64%). Unit staff noted medication-related morbidity in 37% of patients receiving PRN medication, compared to 3% of patients receiving only regularly scheduled medication. Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) were most frequently associated with administration of PRN haloperidol (Relative Risk vs other PRN medications = 5.61, 95% CI = 2.36-13.73). Conclusions: Pro re nata medications comprised a significant part of the treatment which psychotic patients received. The common practice of coprescribing PRN typical antipsychotics with scheduled atypical antipsychotics is potentially problematical since administration of PRN medication is associated with significant medication related morbidity. Preferential use of benzodiazepines as PRN agents may minimize this morbidity and foster subsequent compliance with regularly prescribed antipsychotics.

Development of a quality use of medicines coding system to rate clinical pharmacists' medication review recommendations

Objective: To develop a 'quality use of medicines' coding system for the assessment of pharmacists' medication reviews and to apply it to an appropriate cohort. Method: A 'quality use of medicines' coding system was developed based on findings in the literature. These codes were then applied to 216 (111 intervention, 105 control) veterans' medication profiles by an independent clinical pharmacist who was supported by a clinical pharmacologist with the aim to assess the appropriateness of pharmacy interventions. The profiles were provided for veterans participating in a randomised, controlled trial in private hospitals evaluating the effect of medication review and discharge counselling. The reliability of the coding was tested by two independent clinical pharmacists in a random sample of 23 veterans from the study population. Main outcome measure: Interrater reliability was assessed by applying Cohen's kappa score on aggregated codes. Results: The coding system based on the literature consisted of 19 codes. The results from the three clinical pharmacists suggested that the original coding system had two major problems: (a) a lack of discrimination for certain recommendations e. g. adverse drug reactions, toxicity and mortality may be seen as variations in degree of a single effect and (b) certain codes e. g. essential therapy were in low prevalence. The interrater reliability for an aggregation of all codes into positive, negative and clinically non-significant codes ranged from 0.49-0.58 (good to fair). The interrater reliability increased to 0.72-0.79 (excellent) when all negative codes were excluded. Analysis of the sample of 216 profiles showed that the most prevalent recommendations from the clinical pharmacists were a positive impact in reducing adverse responses (31.9%), an improvement in good clinical pharmacy practice (25.5%) and a positive impact in reducing drug toxicity (11.1%). Most medications were assigned the clinically non-significant code (96.6%). In fact, the interventions led to a statistically significant difference in pharmacist recommendations in the categories; adverse response, toxicity and good clinical pharmacy practice measured by the quality use of medicine coding system. Conclusion: It was possible to use the quality use of medicine coding system to rate the quality and potential health impact of pharmacists' medication reviews, and the system did pick up differences between intervention and control patients. The interrater reliability for the summarised coding system was fair, but a larger sample of medication regimens is needed to assess the non-summarised quality use of medicines coding system.

Factors influencing PRN medication use in nursing homes

Objective: To identify determinants of PRN ( as needed) drug use in nursing homes. Decisions about the use of these medications are made expressly by nursing home staff when general medical practitioners (GPs) prescribe medications for PRN use. Method: Cross-sectional drug use data were collected during a 7-day window from 13 Australian nursing homes. Information was collected on the size, staffing-mix, number of visiting GPs, number of medication rounds, and mortality rates in each nursing home. Resident specific measures collected included age, gender, length of stay, recent hospitalisation and care needs. Main outcome measures: The number of PRN orders prescribed per resident and the number of PRN doses given per week averaged over the number of PRN medications given at all in the seven-day period. Results: Approximately 35% of medications were prescribed for PRN use. Higher PRN use was found for residents with the lower care needs, recent hospitalisation and more frequent doses of regularly scheduled medications. With increasing length of stay, PRN medication orders initially increased then declined but the number of doses given declined from admission. While some resident-specific characteristics did influence PRN drug use, the key determinant for PRN medication orders was the specific nursing home in which a resident lived. Resident age and gender were not determinants of PRN drug use. Conclusion: The determinants of PRN drug use suggest that interventions to optimize PRN medications should target the care of individual residents, prescribing and the nursing home processes and policies that govern PRN drug use.

Medication management reviews for people from the former Yugoslavia now resident in Australia

Aim: The objective of this prospective study was to conduct medication management reviews (MMR) in people from a non-English speaking background (NESB) (Bosnian/Serbian/ Croatian, from former Yugoslavia, currently residing in Australia) in their native language in order to identify medication-related problems (needs analysis) and implement appropriate therapeutic interventions, in collaboration with their general practitioners (GPs). Methods: Twenty-five participants entered the study. Each was interviewed and medication-related issues were identified by the health care team. Results: Various interventions (over 150 for the whole group, an average of 6 per participant), based on actual and potentia medication-related problems, were designed to improve the use of medicines. The MMRs introduced effective changes into the participants' health care. Psychological (e.g., feeling depressed) and sociological factors (e.g., costs of medicines, not understanding labels written in English) were identified having significant impacts on medication management. Conclusions: These data confirmed there are avoidable medication-related problems in people from a NESB. GPs and pharmacists working in health care teams with a trained interpreter could greatly improve medication use through regular review and a team approach to problem identification and solving.

Medication management at home: medication-related risk factors associated with poor health outcomes

Background: some patients may have medication-related risk factors only identified by home visits, but the extent to which those risk factors are associated with poor health outcomes remains unclear. Objective: to determine the association between medication-related risk factors and poor patient health outcomes from observations in the patients' homes. Design: cross-sectional study. Setting: patients' homes. Subjects: 204 general practice patients living in their own homes and at risk of medication-related poor health outcomes. Methods: medications and medication-related risk factors were identified in the patients' homes by community pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs). The medication-related risk factors were examined as determinants of patients' self-reported health related quality of life (SF-36) and their medication use, as well as physicians' impression of patient adverse drug events and health status. Results: key medication-related risk factors associated with poor health outcomes included: Lack of any medication administration routine, therapeutic duplication, hoarding, confusion between generic and trade names, multiple prescribers, discontinued medication repeats retained and multiple storage locations. Older age and female gender were associated with some poorer health outcomes. In addition, expired medication and poor adherence were also associated with poor health outcomes, however, not independently. Conclusion: the findings support the theory that polypharmacy and medication-related risk factors as a result of polypharmacy are correlated to poor health outcomes.