Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:06:31.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Improving Physical Health Monitoring for Patients Diagnosed With Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Emily Simon Thomas*
Affiliation:
West London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Ozias Smith
Affiliation:
Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Verity Berry
Affiliation:
Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding 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

The aim of this work was to apply the well established standards for patients suffering from diagnoses classed as Severe Mental Illness (SMI) to patients with a diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) in our EUPD psychotherapy service. This patient population is also known to suffer lower life expectancy and greater physical comorbidities than the general population, and indeed than patients with other personality disorders, and this represents part of the holistic care we hope to offer in our service. In order to bring this in line, we were aiming for an annual medical review including: height, weight, blood pressure, blood tests including lipids, up to date information about alcohol and substance misuse.

Methods

One month before a patient's 6-week and 12-month review we liaised with their general practitioner (GP) for the above information. We then followed up as needed. In the first cycle of this work (January through July 2022) we found that we were able to establish contact with patients' GPs and there was qualitative evidence from patient testimonials about improved relationships with their GPs. However, the information that we were receiving was not complete - 0% had all the information that was requested.

Following discussion in the team, a proforma was developed to make it as clear as possible to the GP which information we were seeking. We more proactively engaged GPs and patients' other physical care teams, including neurology teams. Where patients had home monitoring equipment like a blood pressure cuff or scales, we also collected information from these. Compliance was reviewed again at the end of the next six-month cycle (August 2022-January 2023).

Results

Between the first cycle, from January 2022 through July 2022 and the second cycle from August 2022 through January 2023, we improved compliance toward the target of having all these data points documented for all patients from 0 to 57%. This included 100% compliance for blood pressure and pulse measures and 86% compliance for documented weight.

We also note improved relationship between patients and GPs and other healthcare professionals including a patient testimonial “Having not had the support of Waterview dedicated staff and the group I probably would not attend any of the hospital appointments.”

Conclusion

Introducing the proforma significantly improved compliance with physical health monitoring targets from 0 to 57%. Further work within the team and with GPs including education on the diagnosis may improve this further.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.