MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173897554 · doi:10.1192/bjo.2021.851

Audit of physical health monitoring during initiation and ongoing treatment with antipsychotic medication in a tier 3 outpatient CAMHS service, Belfast

2021· article· en· W3173897554 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pam Hamlyn, Aaron McMenamin, Hilary Boyd, Lara Patton

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAuditNiceAntipsychoticPsychiatryFamily medicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims To evidence that physical health monitoring during antipsychotic initiation and continued treatment within the Child and Family Clinic is current, as per the agreed Antipsychotic Medication Monitoring Schedule for Belfast Trust CAMHS (2015), supporting Quality Network for Community CAMHS(QNCC) accreditation. Background The Antipsychotic Medication Monitoring Schedule CAMHS(2015) was agreed by a working group of consultant psychiatrists and pharmacists, based on evidence from The Canadian Alliance for Monitoring Effectiveness and Safety of Antipsychotics in Children (CAMSEA), NICE Guidelines CG 185(2014), CG155(2013) and Maudsley Guidelines, and was to be located on the electronic system (PARIS). Method In January 2019, a list of all children/young people on antipsychotic medication was collated (n = 12). Presence of the monitoring schedule in the clinical notes or PARIS was recorded. The Electronic Care Record was reviewed for blood results and PARIS letters for documentation of physical health parameters (heart rate, blood pressure, height, weight, BMI, extrapyramidal side effects, ECG) and to identify documentation of risk/benefit review where monitoring was declined. Re-audit January 2020 (n = 9). Criteria: All patients commenced on antipsychotic medication will have baseline blood investigations and other physical health parameters documented as per the monitoring schedule. If monitoring was declined, the reason for this and indications for prescribing must be documented as a risk/benefit analysis. All patients on antipsychotic medication will be current with their physical health Monitoring Schedule. All patients will have their Monitoring Schedule completed in clinical notes or on PARIS. Result First cycle results (n = 12): Baseline bloods (or documented declined) = 92%, Baseline ECG (or documented declined) = 75% Complete monitoring bloods = 33%, Physical health monitoring parameters complete = 42% Monitoring schedule present in the notes and current = 42% (0% on PARIS). Initial Recommendations: Standardised recording of monitoring using PARIS clinic letters and the schedule in front of clinical notes; Baseline ECG mandatory Second cycle results (n = 9): Baseline bloods (or declined) = 89%, Baseline ECG (or declined) = 67% Complete monitoring bloods = 44%, Physical health monitoring parameters complete = 56% Monitoring schedule present in notes and current = 38%, Present, not current = 50% (0% on PARIS). Conclusion Lower numbers at re-audit limit interpretation. Further recommendations: Antipsychotic initiation checklist; Central bloods diary for clinicians; Antipsychotic care-pathway booklet, co-produced with young people, incorporating the monitoring schedule.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207