Search

AimsTo provide a fresh insight into the extent digital phenotyping methods have been employed to measure or detect social behaviour in patients with SMIs; with a closer look at those used in Bipolar Disorder (BD); to give findings on the validity, reliability, acceptability and tolerability of these digital phenotyping methods.MethodsUsing specified search terms relating to digital phenotyping metrics and terms related to SMIs, a thorough literature search strategy for studies was employed across the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, and PsychINFO - from inception to July 2021.Included studies employed digital phenotyping methods, collecting either passive, active or mixed-modal data, which in principle reported metrics representing social behaviour on patients with an SMI. Here we present a preliminary analysis of studies reporting results for patients with BD, with a particular focus on tolerability and acceptability.ResultsOf 4,646 records initially screened, a subgroup of 9 studies (n = 474) directly focusing on patients with BD are reported here. Across the studies, we find a modest adherence rate towards these applications by patients, ranging from 72.6% to 89.2%. Methods used by the studies include the frequency of phone calls and text messages, and self-reported and observer ratings of social and interpersonal functioning. The collection of such digital phenotyping data appears tolerable and acceptable to participants with BD, with patients reporting them to be supportive and only mildly intrusive.ConclusionOur preliminary analysis suggests that digital phenotyping of social behaviour may be acceptable and tolerable to participants with Bipolar Disorder. In an increasingly digital world, digital phenotyping methods of social behaviour may assist physicians with clinical assessment and prediction of clinical outcomes including relapse. Future analyses will assess the reliability and validity of the data that such methods yield, and their potential therapeutic value.

SummaryDigital phenotyping (such as using live data from personal digital devices on sleep, activity and social media interactions) to monitor and interpret people's current mental state is a newly emerging development in psychiatry. This article offers an imaginary insight into its future potential for both psychiatrist and patient.

AimsPrevious research suggests the prevalence of mental health conditions among medical inpatients may be as high as 38%. Anecdotally, junior doctors report lacking the confidence, knowledge and skills to assess and treat patients with psychiatric conditions. Identifying this unmet need offers potential to improve standards of care and achieve parity of esteem between psychiatric and medical conditions within the general hospital. Aims:To assess self-reported preparedness of newly-qualified Foundation Doctors to care for patients with acute or chronic psychiatric symptoms in comparison to physical health conditions.MethodIn September of each year (2017, 2018, 2019), a survey was cascaded to all incoming Foundation Year 1 Doctors. For each respective year there were 1673, 961 & 1301 respondents. Respondents were asked to rate their agreement with statements on a Likert scale. Statements pertaining to mental health included “a) I am competent in acute mental health care provision, b) I am competent in chronic mental health care provision” and “I feel confident in prescribing the following drugs; c) drugs for mental health problems”. Comparison statements assessed confidence caring for medically unwell patients, performing practical procedures and prescribing drugs for physical health conditions.ResultPreparedness for acute and chronic mental health were lower than both physical health comparison items; preparedness to care for patients with critical illness (acute: r = 0.794, p < 0.001, chronic: r = 0.556, p < 0.001) and preparedness to perform practical procedures (acute: r = 0.724, p < 0.001, chronic: r = 0.433, p < 0.001).Confidence prescribing mental health drugs was lower than all other comparison items (simple analgesia: r = 0.854, bronchodilators: r = 0.789, antimicrobials: r = 0.772, inhaled steroids: r = 0.720, intravenous fluids: r = 0.702, oral anti-diabetics: r = 0.611, anticoagulants: r = 0.515, narcotics: r = 0.514, insulin: r = 0.206; p < 0.001)ConclusionThese results identify a disparity in foundation doctors’ self-reported preparedness to treat acute and chronic mental health conditions and prescribe psychotropic medications, compared to a variety of physical health domains. To our knowledge this is the first large-scale study to empirically test a potential discrepancy between newly-qualified doctors’ preparedness to treat patients’ mental and physical health needs. Medical school education and foundation training may therefore present a fruitful opportunity to improve care for patients with psychiatric conditions within general hospital settings.

AimsTo assess concordance with guidelines on monitoring vitamin D levels and prescribing prophylaxis or replacement. To assess the association between the implementation of local guidelines and prevalence of vitamin D deficiency.BackgroundVitamin D deficiency is associated with various adverse health outcomes including osteoporosis, fractures and myalgia. Most recently, vitamin D deficiency has been hypothesised as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 infection. Risk factors for vitamin D deficiency include incarceration, ethnicity, diet and a diagnosis of psychiatric disorder. Vitamin D deficiency is known to be prevalent among individuals within forensic mental health institutions.Local Trust guidelines advise that vitamin D levels should be checked within one-month of hospital admission, followed by checks at three-monthly intervals. Recommendations for prescribing depend on patients’ vitamin D levels; deficient (MethodMedical records, laboratory results and drug charts were assessed for a total of 75 patients across 15 wards. Data were collected using a standardised audit tool, including; date of admission, admission vitamin D level, most recent vitamin D level and the dose and frequency of vitamin D prescribed.Result76.4% of patients had their vitamin D levels checked within one month of admission. 66.7% of patients had their vitamin D checked within the last 3 months. For patients with an admission vitamin D level recorded, 43.6% had deficient vitamin D levels, 43.6% had insufficient levels and 12.7% had adequate levels. For patients with a more recent serum vitamin D level, 14.5% had deficient levels, 38.7% had insufficient levels and 46.8% had adequate levels. For patients with a documented serum vitamin D level, 21.4% were prescribed the correct dose, 22.9% were under-dosed, 14.3% were over-dosed and 41.4% received no dose where guidelines suggested they should.ConclusionComparison of admission and most recent vitamin D levels suggests a general improvement in prevalence of vitamin D deficiency associated with the implementation of local guidelines. However, we identify significant areas for improvement. A substantial proportion of patients lacked admission or regular monitoring of vitamin D levels and a substantial proportion of patients were under-dosed or received no dose where guidelines suggested they should have. We propose that better concordance with guidelines may improve clinical outcomes further. This may prove especially important during the COVID-19 pandemic, given a potential association between vitamin D deficiency and severity of respiratory infection.