The appropriate monitoring of patients on lithium therapy has been the subject of extensive research in the form of clinical audits and surveys culminating in the development of specific guidelines to help clinicians provide optimal care for patients on lithium. The concept of ‘shared care’ has also gained attention in the literature with various types of shared care interventions being introduced as potential ways of improving communication between primary and secondary care.

This article aims to (1) review the literature evaluating lithium monitoring practices in the United Kingdom and Ireland in the last 25 years and (2) determine whether locally agreed shared care agreements have the potential to improve monitoring quality.

A literature search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL and PsychInfo. A total of 12 studies were selected for review including 11 audits/prospective chart reviews and one qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

Overall, the quality of lithium monitoring seems to be improving throughout the years. However, none of the studies reviewed revealed complete adherence to monitoring guidelines. This may be due to a lack of effective communication between primary and secondary care. Several shared care interventions have been described in the literature but there is a paucity of studies concerned with the effects of local shared care arrangements designed for the specific purpose of lithium monitoring. Nonetheless, the extant data suggests that such agreements may help improve monitoring standards by allowing the responsibilities for managing the prescribing and monitoring of lithium to be more clearly defined and shared between primary and secondary care.

The aim of this study was to improve the quality of prescription writing in a long-term psychogeriatric inpatient unit by a combination of serial audits and interventions designed to address the identified deficiencies.

We undertook three clinical audits of the prescription sheets used in an inpatient unit providing continuing care for residents with severe and enduring mental illness and dementia. Based on the findings of the first audit a set of prescribing guidelines was implemented into the ward. Following the second audit a new prescription sheet was developed. The format of the new prescription sheet was designed to account for the needs of the unit and to adhere to Irish and UK best practise guidelines. Two months after its introduction we undertook a third audit.

Completion of the drug sensitivity box increased from 25% at audit one to 100% at audit three. Other specific aspects of prescription writing that had been poor at the beginning of the audit cycle also showed improvement: prescribing of generic psychotropic drugs increased by 69% and inclusion of the prescribers Medical Council Registration Number increased by 78%. However, some basic aspects of prescription writing remained weak such as frequency of drug administration and documentation of the stop/review date for ‘as required’ medication.

The results of this study suggest that clinical audit and feedback can improve the quality of prescriptions in an in-patient setting.

Background: We report a case of a false positive for clozapine, when analysing serum levels using a high-pressure liquid chromatography with ultraviolet (HPLC-UV) detection method.

Methods: A patient not taking clozapine tested positive for clozapine three times in two different samples. This false positive was discovered by chance, because of an administrative error made in the first analytic test request.

Results: The analysis of the first sample with a more specific method [HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)] showed that no clozapine was present.

Conclusions: It is important to acknowledge that depending on the method employed, a false positive should not be ruled out as a possibility. Moreover, and even more worryingly, it should also be taken into account that clozapine serum levels could be tested erroneously high if the unknown interference is present and the HPLC-UV method is used. Although the interfering compound could not be identified, the possibility of a cross-reaction when analysing serum clozapine levels with the HPLC-UV method warrants urgent attention.