Magical thinking and moral injury: exclusion culture in psychiatry

Summary This is an article about exclusion. We might not like to admit it – even fail to realise it – but National Health Service (NHS) mental health service structures have become increasingly focused on how to deny people care instead of help them to access it. Clinicians learn the art of self-delusion, convincing ourselves we are not letting patients down but, instead, doing the clinically appropriate thing. Well-meant initiatives become misappropriated to justify neglect. Are we trying to protect ourselves against the knowledge that we're failing our patients, or is collusion simply the easiest option? Problematic language endemic in psychiatry reveals a deeper issue: a culture of fear and falsehood, leading to iatrogenic harm. An excessively risk-averse and under-resourced system may drain its clinicians of compassion, losing sight of the human being behind each ‘protected’ bed and rejected referral.

Injury Incidence

“Injury Incidence: Scope of the Problem” reviews the major empirical research on iatrogenic harm. Hospital-records studies find about 3% to 4% of patients suffer adverse events, about a third of which are attributable to negligence, equating to 250,000 or more deaths per year. These deaths and injuries are disaggregated into those attributable to treatment, infection, medication, and diagnosis. As research designs expand beyond medical records, and as settings extend beyond hospitals, the total increases. Direct-observation studies find about 10 times as many injurious adverse events. Methods involving more complex information-technology (Global Trigger) also find about 10 times as many. Adding to that, available data suggest that about as many adverse events occur outside of hospitals as inside. Finally, the chapter looks beyond inadvertent harms to intentional unnecessary treatment, much of which is understood as supply-sensitive care. These consume about 30% of healthcare expenditures.

Drug–drug interaction database for safe prescribing of systemic antifungal agents

Introduction: A drug–drug interaction (DDI) describes the influence of one drug upon another or the change in a drug’s effect on the body when the drug is taken together with a second drug. A DDI can delay, decrease or enhance absorption or metabolism of either drug. Several antifungal agents have a large number of potentially deleterious DDIs. Methods: The antifungal drug interactions database https://antifungalinteractions.org/was first launched in 2012 and is updated regularly. It is available as web and app versions to allow information on potential drug interactions with antifungals with a version for patients and another for health professionals. A new and updated database and interface with apps was created in 2019. This allows clinicians and patients to rapidly check for DDIs. The database is fully referenced to allow the user to access further information if needed. Currently DDIs for fluconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, posaconazole, isavuconazole, terbinafine, amphotericin B, caspofungin, micafungin and anidulafungin are cross-referenced against 2398 other licensed drugs, a total of nearly 17,000 potential DDIs. Results: The database records 541 potentially severe DDIs, 1129 moderate and 1015 mild DDIs, a total of 2685 (15.9%). Conclusion: As the online database and apps are free to use, we hope that widespread acceptance and usage will reduce medical misadventure and iatrogenic harm from unconsidered DDIs.

Incidence of paediatric 10-fold medication errors in Wales

ObjectivesTo estimate the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of 10-fold or greater or a tenth or less medication errors in children aged <16 years in Wales.DesignPopulation-based surveillance study July 2017 to June 2019. Cases were identified by paediatricians and hospital pharmacists using monthly electronic Welsh Paediatric Surveillance Unit (WPSU) reporting system.Patients‘Definite’ incident occurred when children received all or any of the incorrect dose of medication. ‘Near miss’ was where the prescribed, prepared or dispensed medication was not administered to the child.Main outcome measuresIncidence, patient characteristics, setting, drug characteristics, outcome, harm and enabling or preventive factors.ResultsIn total, 50 10-fold errors were reported; 20 definite and 30 near miss cases. This yields a minimum annual incidence of 1 per 3797 admissions, or 4.6/100 000 children. Of these, 43 were overdoses and 7 underdoses. 33 incidents occurred in children <5 years of age. Overall, 37 different medications were involved with the majority, 31 cases, being administered enterally. Of these 31 enteral medication errors, all definite cases (10) had received liquid preparations. Temporary harm occurred in 5/20 (25%) definite cases with one requiring intensive care; all fully recovered.ConclusionsIn this first ever population surveillance study in a high-resource healthcare system, 10-fold errors in children were rare, sometimes prevented and uncommonly caused harm. We recommend country-wide improvements be made to reduce iatrogenic harm. Understanding the enabling and preventive factors may help national improvement strategies to reduce these errors.

Looking for the “Little Things”: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Medicines Monitoring for Older People Using the ADRe Resource

Advances in medicines have increased the effectiveness of treatments and the social and cultural authority of doctors. However, as prescribing has become the dominant modality of treatment, the “pharmaceuticalization” of medical practice has often resulted in treatment “at a distance”, with doctors having limited contact with patients. Older and poorer people, who are socially distanced from medical prescribers, suffer more adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than the general population. A team approach to checking patients systematically for ADRs, as detailed in manufacturers’ literature, can minimise medication errors, but regular review is rare. This paper explains the benefits of medicines monitoring to protect older patients from iatrogenic harm, such as over-sedation, falls, or drug-induced Parkinsonism. We show how multidisciplinary initiatives to optimise prescribing can be supported by using a recognised resource—the adverse drug reaction profile (ADRe). The profile identifies and documents patients’ signs and symptoms of putative ADRs. Better monitoring allows professionals to adjust prescribing and respond to identified problems with agility. Implementation of systematic monitoring will require changes to the regulatory regime and better inter-professional cooperation. Providing carers, nurses and pharmacists with a structured system to monitor patients would democratise relevant medical knowledge and help address ageism and the socio-economic health divide.

Muddying the waters? A false positive case of autoimmune psychosis

Objective: To discuss challenges with the diagnosis of autoimmune psychosis (AP) in people with chronic psychotic disorders. Method: We present a case of a 23-year-old man with an exacerbation of treatment-refractory psychosis after receiving intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for suspected AP, diagnosed 4 years after the onset of psychosis. We highlight the diagnostic and management challenges in such cases. Results: The diagnosis of AP in people with long-standing illness relies on the interpretation of non-specific clinical and laboratory findings in individuals with psychosocial problems and challenges of acceptance and adherence to complex medical investigations and treatments. Equivocal results from investigations undertaken without logical clinical reasoning can lead to inappropriate interventions that are costly and can cause iatrogenic harm. Conclusion: Psychiatrists should restrict screening for antineuronal antibodies in people with chronic psychosis to those with higher risk features such as persistent treatment refractory symptoms with concurrent neurological signs and symptoms. Further research informing the clinical circumstances for antineuronal antibody testing is needed.

Orthodontic Conundrums Part 1: Transposition – an Update on Presentation and Treatment Modalities

This is the first article in a three-part series considering uncommon dental anomalies and treatment approaches. Dental transpositions are rare anomalies which may present to the general dental practitioner or orthodontist. The management of transpositions is dependent on several factors, including the sub-type, severity and the other salient features of the malocclusion. Transposition may either be accepted or orthodontically corrected and the adoption of either approach must be preceded by thorough assessment of the patient. CPD/Clinical Relevance: The presentation and management of transposition is variable. The general dental practitioner must be aware of the clinical features of a developing transposition as certain treatment options are only possible before the transposition is fully established. In addition, the orthodontist must be mindful of the potential for iatrogenic harm if these dental anomalies are managed injudiciously.