HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS British Journal of Psychiatry Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Choke, A. Articles by Howlett, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Choke, A. Articles by Howlett, M.

Lorazepam prescription and monitoring in acute adult psychiatric wards

General Adult Psychiatry, Morden Community Mental Health Team, Nelson Hospital, Kingston Road, London SW20 8DB, email: aislinndornan{at}hotmail.com

Mani V. Perumal, Senior House Officer

South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust, London

Mary Howlett, Consultant Psychiatrist

General Adult Psychiatry, South West London and St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust, London

Declaration of interest

None.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion References

 
AIMS AND METHOD

This study examines prescription and monitoring of lorazepam on three acute adult psychiatric wards at a university teaching hospital. Retrospective data from 102 consecutive in-patients were analysed.

RESULTS

There were 83 patients (81.4%) who were prescribed lorazepam, however 45 of these (46%) were never administered it. Indication for lorazepam prescription was documented by the doctor in 35 patients (42.2%). Administration by nursing staff was documented in the medical notes on 86 occasions (60.0%) and on 32 of these (37.0%) the indication was unclear. On 21 occasions (14.7%) more than 2 mg was given; 13.7% of prescriptions were not reviewed and 64% of those reviewed after more than 4 weeks.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Lorazepam was overprescribed and inadequately monitored, which may increase the risk of dependence.

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion References

 
Benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in psychiatric practice but because of their strong propensity to cause dependence, several guidelines have been published regulating their use (Table 1). There is concern that despite recommendations from national guidelines, benzodiazepines may be used for prolonged periods, thus risking dependence, and for inappropriate indications on acute psychiatric wards (Vandel et al, 1992; Noble et al, 1993).

Lorazepam, a short-acting benzodiazepine, is commonly used to manage agitation associated with conditions such as psychosis, mania or hypomania (Yildiz et al, 2003). Owing to the tendency for antipsychotic medication to cause extrapyramidal side-effects, lorazepam is an effective alternative in the treatment of acutely agitated patients (Battaglia et al, 1997; Foster et al, 1997; Gillies et al, 2005). However, as short-acting benzodiazepines are associated with more severe withdrawal symptoms on cessation, the risk of inducing dependence is greater (British Medical Association & Royal Pharmaceutical Society, 2005).

This study examined the prescription and monitoring of lorazepam on three acute adult psychiatric wards at a university teaching hospital. The catchment areas of the four community mental health teams admitting patients to these wards were multicultural and urban.

	Method

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion References

 
Retrospective data were collected from 102 consecutive in-patients on three acute adult psychiatric wards during April 2005. The information extracted by means of a standardised pro forma from prescription cards for each in-patient included:

• whether lorazepam was prescribed during the hospital admission
  
• whether the clinical indication for lorazepam prescription was documented by the prescribing doctor, either on the prescription card or in the medical notes
  
• whether the reason for administration of lorazepam on each occasion was documented in the patients’ notes by the nursing staff
  
• doses of lorazepam administered by nursing staff
  
• whether lorazepam prescription was reviewed and if so after what time period.
  

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion References

 
There were 39 male (38.0%) and 63 female (62.0%) in-patients included in the study; the median age was 39 years (range 18–75 years). Diagnoses for in-patients were: 42 paranoid schizophrenia; 14 borderline personality disorder; 13 bipolar affective disorder; 8 alcohol-related disorders; 7 acute and transient psychotic disorder; 4 schizoaffective disorder; and 13 other diagnosis.

The extent of prescription and administration of lorazepam is shown in Tables 2 and 3. Of the total 102 patients, 83 (81.4%) were prescribed lorazepam during their admission. Of these, 38 (46.0%) were never administered the drug.

The clinical indication for lorazepam prescription was documented by the doctor either in the medical notes or on the prescription card in 35 instances (42.2%). Lorazepam was administered on 143 occasions and indication for administration was documented on 86 (60.0%). Of these documented occasions, the indication was for agitation on 51 occasions (59.5%) and sleep on 3.5%. On 32 occasions (37%) the indication was unclear, in that it was administered at patient request on 12 occasions (14%) and not stated on 20 (23%).

More than 2 mg of lorazepam was administered on 21 occasions (14.7%) (1 in-patient was given 6 mg and 2 in-patients 5 mg each).

In 13.7% the lorazepam had not been reviewed and no review date had been set. In the other 86.3%, the majority had review dates set at more than 4 weeks (50% between 4 and 12 weeks and 14% at 1 year).

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion References

 
Main findings
A large proportion of the patients prescribed lorazepam during their hospital admission were not actually administered the drug. This calls into question whether it was unnecessarily prescribed and whether closer consideration of its prescription is required at time of admission. There might be pressure for on-call junior doctors to prescribe lorazepam on admission in order to facilitate the management of patients on wards, especially out of hours. It also tends to be difficult to obtain information about patients at this time, and this may also lead to a lower threshold for prescription.

The clinical indication for lorazepam prescription was documented by the doctor for less than half of patients and this could lead to inappropriate administration. There was also relatively poor recording of both actual administration of lorazepam and the indication for which it was being given in the medical notes by nursing staff. Studies have previously reported a major reason for administering PRN medication was because patients had’requested’ it (Gray et al, 1996). Similarly, the present study found that lorazepam was given at patient request on 14% of occasions.

The recommended dose of lorazepam for anxiety is 1–4 mg daily in divided doses (for older people this is half of the adult dose) and is 1–2 mg at bedtime for insomnia associated with anxiety. On 14.7% of occasions more than 2 mg was given on a single occasion. One patient was given 6 mg and two patients 5 mg each, despite documented maximum doses of 2 mg on the prescription charts. These doses were outside safe British National Formulary (BNF) limits (British Medical Association & Royal Pharmaceutical Society, 2005) and the reason for these excessive administrations appeared to be error rather than more extreme clinical presentations.

Regular review of continuing need for lorazepam is necessary owing to its propensity to cause dependence. In their case series of 227 in-patients, Vandel et al (1992) reported that hospitalisation was an inducer of benzodiazepine intake and dependence in 16% of the in-patients. Guidelines (Table 1) state that use of benzodiazepines should be limited to 2–4 weeks and therefore review of their use should be at less than 4 weeks. In 13.7% of patients no review date was set and of those cases that were reviewed or that had a review date set, only 36% were reviewed at less than 4 weeks. In 14% of patients the review date was set at 1 year, by which stage dependence would be highly likely. However, this study does not differentiate intermittent, which is less likely to induce dependence, from regular lorazepam use.

Implications
This study has identified scope for improvement both in the prescription and monitoring of lorazepam. It has highlighted possible excess and automatic prescription of lorazepam, inadequate documentation by both prescribers and administrators with regard to indication for use, as well as a lack of appropriate review of prescriptions on the three psychiatric wards considered. These practices risk inappropriate use and dependence if lorazepam is administered on a regular basis.

Clearer local guidelines should be in place to regulate the use of lorazepam. The reason why the patient was administered lorazepam by the nursing staff should be documented on each occasion in order to evaluate the continued need for lorazepam, the appropriateness of prescription as well as to monitor the mental state of the patient. Mandatory documentation of indication for lorazepam use on the prescription card by prescribing doctors should reduce its administration by nursing staff for inappropriate indications, for example at patient request. It would be helpful to liaise with hospital pharmacy departments regarding a possible change in configuration of prescription cards, in particular the creation of a space on the prescription card for the indication to be entered might lead to improved documentation. Review dates of less than 4 weeks should be set at the time of prescription to reduce unnecessarily prolonged prescriptions. In light of guidelines advising against long-term use, record should be kept of patients who are administered lorazepam regularly for more than a 2-week period to identify those at risk of developing dependence. Finally, similar investigation of other drugs likely to cause dependence, such as zopiclone and other benzodiazepines, would also be useful.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Method Results Discussion References

 
BATTAGLIA, J., MOSS, S., RUSH, J., et al (1997) Haloperidol, lorazepam, or both for psychotic agitation? A multicenter, prospective, double-blind, emergency department study. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15, 335 –340.[CrossRef][Medline]

BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ROYAL PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY (2005) British National Formulary 49. BMA & Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

FOSTER, S., KESSEL, J., BERMAN, M. E., et al (1997) Efficacy of lorazepam and haloperidol for rapid tranquilization in a psychiatric emergency room setting. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 12, 175 –179.[Medline]

GILLIES, D., BECK, A., McCLOUD, A.,et al (2005) Benzodiazepines alone or in combination with antipsychotic drugs for acute psychosis. Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, CD003079. Wiley InterScience.

GRAY, R. J., SMEDLEY, N. S. & THOMAS, B. L. (1996) Administration of PRN medication by mental health nurses. British Journal of Nursing, 5, 1317 –1322.[Medline]

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EXCELLENCE (2002) Care Interventions in the Treatment and Management of Schizophreniain Primary and Secondary Care. NICE.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EXCELLENCE (2004) Management of Anxiety (Panic Disorder, With or Without Agoraphobia, and Generalised Anxiety Disorder) in Adults in Primary, Secondary and Community Care. NICE.

NOBLE, T., SPIROULIAS, M. & WHITE, J. M. (1993) Determinants of benzodiazepine prescribing and administration in a public hospital. Pharmacopsychiatry, 26, 11 –14.[Medline]

TAYLOR, D., PATON, C., & KERWIN, R. (2005) The Maudsley 2005-2006 Prescribing Guidelines (8th edn). Taylor & Francis.

VANDEL, S., NEZELOF, S., BONIN, B., et al (1992) Consumption of benzodiazepines in a university hospital centre (in French). Encephale, 18, 401 –405.[Medline]

YILDIZ, A., SACHS, G. S. & TURGAY, A. (2003) Pharmacological management of agitation in emergency settings. Emergency Medicine Journal, 20, 339 –346.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

eLetters:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter View responses Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Choke, A. Articles by Howlett, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Choke, A. Articles by Howlett, M.