J. A. Stokes

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 threemonth 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 disorders. 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 anticholinergics. 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%). Administration 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.

Medication management at home: medication risk factor prevalence and inter‐relationships

Background and objective:  Patients can have medication‐related risk factors associated with poor health outcomes that become evident through visiting them in their homes. These medication‐related risk factors may not be apparent in pharmacy and general practitioner (GP) records. The aim was to determine the prevalence and inter‐relationships of medication‐related risk factors for poor patient health outcomes identifiable through ‘in‐home’ observations.

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 nonpharmacological 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.

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.