Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by Thapa, P. B. Articles by Miller, L. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by Thapa, P. B. Articles by Miller, L. H. Hospitals, Hospital Treatment Other Administrative Issues Violence in Treatment Settings Atypical Neuroleptics Conventional Neuroleptics

P.R.N. (As-Needed) Orders and Exposure of Psychiatric Inpatients to Unnecessary Psychotropic Medications

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the practice of writing standing p.r.n. (as-needed) orders exposes psychiatric inpatients to unnecessary psychotropic medications. METHODS: Medical records for 223 new hospital admissions between July 15 and October 15, 1999, when p.r.n. orders were allowed, and 224 new admissions between November 15, 1999, and February 15, 2000, when p.r.n. orders were not allowed and only "now" orders were permitted, were reviewed from the three acute adult psychiatric units of the Arkansas State Hospital in Little Rock. Data were collected on demographic and clinical characteristics, scheduled and unscheduled psychotropic medications as noted in the medication administration records, use of seclusion and restraint, and incident reports of physical aggression. The mean numbers of unscheduled psychotropic medication doses administered during the two periods were compared. RESULTS: The number of unscheduled psychotropic medications administered decreased from 1,812 in the first period to 976 in the second period (adjusted mean doses per admission, 7.8 to 4.3). The decrease in use of unscheduled medications when standing p.r.n. orders were no longer allowed was not associated with corresponding increases in adverse events: there were fewer incidents of restraint (four compared with eight), fewer incidents of seclusion (41 compared with 48), and fewer incidents of physical aggression (35 compared with 40). In addition, there were no significant changes in the dosages of scheduled psychotropic medications on day 7 of admission, indicating that physicians were not increasing dosages in response to the elimination of p.r.n. orders. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of writing p.r.n. orders may expose psychiatric inpatients to unnecessary psychotropic medications.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Paton, T. R. E. Barnes, M.-R. Cavanagh, D. Taylor, P. Lelliott, and the POMH-UK project team High-dose and combination antipsychotic prescribing in acute adult wards in the UK: the challenges posed by p.r.n. prescribing The British Journal of Psychiatry, June 1, 2008; 192(6): 435 - 439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. M. Smith, A. Altenor, and R. H. Davis Psychiatr Serv, April 1, 2006; 57(4): 576 - 577. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. C. Donat Special Section on Seclusion and Restraint: Encouraging Alternatives to Seclusion, Restraint, and Reliance on PRN Drugs in a Public Psychiatric Hospital Psychiatr Serv, September 1, 2005; 56(9): 1105 - 1108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Rosack New-Generation Antipsychotic Effective for Treating Mania Psychiatr News, October 3, 2003; 38(19): 31 - 31. [Full Text]

				J. Rosack PRN Orders May Benefit Staff More Than Patients Psychiatr News, October 3, 2003; 38(19): 35 - 36. [Full Text]

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2003 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us