Abstract
Background The use of antipsychotics in primary care is increasing, and more are being used for non-psychotic illnesses. Long-term use of antipsychotics confers increased risk of cardiometabolic disease, so ongoing need should be reviewed regularly by psychiatrists. This study explored changes over time in antipsychotic management and prescribing in primary care, and proportions of patients (≥18 years) prescribed antipsychotics receiving psychiatrist review.
Methods and Findings This was a retrospective, population-based observational study using data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank of approximately 3 million people in Wales (2011 to 2020). Outcomes were prevalence of patients who had received ≥6 antipsychotic prescriptions per year, proportion of patients prescribed antipsychotics who had received psychiatrist review in the preceding 12 months, and proportion of patients prescribed antipsychotics who were registered on the UK Primary Care Serious Mental Illness, Depression and/or Dementia registers, or were not on these registers. The prevalence of adults prescribed antipsychotics increased from 1.06% (95%CI 1.04 to 1.07%) in 2011 to 1.45% (95%CI 1.43 to 1.46%) in 2020; 1 in 69 adults were prescribed antipsychotics in 2020. The proportion of adults taking antipsychotics solely managed by primary care increased from 40% (95%CI 39 to 41%) in 2011 to 48% (95%CI 47 to 49%) by 2020. The proportion of antipsychotics prescribed to patients not on the Serious Mental Illness register increased from 50% (95%CI 49 to 51%) in 2011 to 56% (95%CI 56 to 57%) by 2020, meaning many patients may not be monitored for the cardiometabolic risk from antipsychotics.
Conclusions Antipsychotic prescribing is increasing. More people are solely managed by general practitioners without psychiatrist review and are not on relevant disease registers, so are less are likely to undergo vital cardiometabolic monitoring. These trends pose risks for patients and need to be addressed urgently.
Introduction
Antipsychotic medication (APM) is licenced in the United Kingdom (UK) for the management of serious mental illness (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder [1]. Some atypical APMs have extended U.K. licences for treatment of depression (quetiapine) and short-term behavioural management in dementia (risperidone) [2]. APMs are increasingly prescribed off-licence by psychiatrists, often long-term for the management of other conditions, including personality disorder [3], behavioural management in learning disability [4], autism[5] and anxiety [6], despite this contravening best practice guidelines issued by the U.K. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [3, 7, 8]. APMs are effective medications for SMI, but increase risk of obesity [9], type-2 diabetes mellitus [10] and cardiovascular disease [11] when used long-term [12]. Specialist psychiatric review of APM should be undertaken regularly to prevent inappropriate overuse, given patients with SMI die 15-20 years earlier, mainly due to increased rates of cardiovascular disease [13-15], of which APM use is an independent risk factor [16, 17].
General practitioners (GPs) in the U.K. mainly provide physical health reviews of patients with psychotic illness taking APMs [13, 18]. These are conducted via annual recall of patients with diagnostic codes that include them on the U.K. Quality Outcomes Framework (QOF) primary care serious mental illness (QOF SMI) register (which is termed a ‘mental health’ register but focusses entirely on patients with psychotic illnesses and those prescribed lithium). QOF is a national performance management and funding mechanism to establish disease registers of patients who require additional monitoring and support due to existing chronic disease, and forms part of the GP primary care contract in the UK (now excluding Scotland) [19] (see Table S1). The QOF SMI annual review includes monitoring of alcohol consumption, smoking, body mass index, blood pressure, blood glucose and lipids, to detect patients with SMI at risk of developing cardiometabolic diseases [13]. However, patients taking APM for dementia, depression and conditions such as anxiety or personality disorder are not captured on the QOF SMI register, and so risk being missed for cardiometabolic monitoring: a cohort study of 47,724 patients in 2016 reported that <50% patients taking APM are using these for a psychotic diagnosis and thus may miss monitoring [7]. GPs report they lack the skills needed to manage APM independently (e.g., alter dose, switch, or stop APM) that is normally provided by psychiatrists who have the expertise to undertake this review [18, 20, 21]. Patients who are initiated on APM by psychiatrists are often then discharged and followed up by primary care; a cohort study estimated that 31% of patients with SMI were managed solely by primary care in 2009 [22]. These patients may take APM long-term with no opportunity for regular psychiatric review. This study aims to answer the following questions:
Has the prevalence of long-term APM use in primary care changed over the decade just before the COVID-19 pandemic?
Has the proportion of patients prescribed long-term APM receiving specialist psychiatric review changed over this period?
Are there differences in the proportion of people prescribed APMs that are included on QOF SMI, depression, and dementia registers in 2020 compared to 2011?
Methods
Study design
This is a longitudinal, retrospective observational study, undertaken with reference to the ‘Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology’ (STROBE) guidelines [23].
Study population and setting
Individuals registered with a GP practice providing data to the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank formed the population. Analysis focused on adult use (≥18 years), broken down by main psychiatric speciality: general adult psychiatry (patients aged 18-64 years) and older adult psychiatry (patients aged ≥65 years). The prevalence of long-term APM use was defined by identifying patients who had APM prescriptions issued on ≥6 separate days in each calendar year. For each individual, their status on the annual date of 1st January was used to determine age (calculated using their week of birth).
We defined psychiatrist review as occurring where there is a record of a psychiatrist clinic contact with a registered medical practitioner or advanced nurse practitioner (including general adult-, older adult-, child and adolescent-, forensic- or learning disability psychiatry, and psychotherapy subspecialties), or psychiatric hospital admission in the 12 months preceding the year of long-term APM use. If neither outpatient contact nor hospital admission occurred, then we defined APM management as being solely provided by GPs. So, for example, an individual who on 1st January 2019 had ≥6 calendar events of APM issue, was counted as a denominator case, and if in the 12 months preceding this date, they had either psychiatric hospital admission or outpatient contact, they would be counted as a numerator case. Two health boards of the seven in Wales did not provide complete psychiatric outpatient clinic returns for the entire study period; therefore, analysis of the proportions of patients prescribed APM who had received psychiatrist review was limited to the five health boards providing complete returns for 2011-2020. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the suspension of many hospital outpatient clinic services, hence we focused on APM management between 1/1/2011 and 1/1/2020.
Data sources
The SAIL databank was used in this study. This is an expanding data repository of 500 million anonymised and encrypted individual-level records from primary and secondary health care sources, and sociodemographic data relevant to health and well-being. This includes national datasets covering the whole of Wales (approximately 3 million population) [24-28]. Patients registered with GP practices providing data to SAIL were examined using the Welsh Longitudinal General Practice (WLGP) dataset. Currently (2024), 86% of Welsh general practices provide data to SAIL, covering 83% of the Welsh population. Attendance at outpatient psychiatric clinic was determined from the Outpatient Dataset for Wales (OPDW). Admission to psychiatric hospital was ascertained using the Patient Episode Dataset for Wales (PEDW). SAIL databank has been validated for use in studies on SMI in earlier studies [15].
Relevant diagnoses for inclusion in QOF SMI, depression and dementia registers recorded in GP records and prescriptions for APMs (with a licence for use in the UK in the study period as listed in the British National Formulary [2]) were extracted using 5-digit Read Codes (v2) in WLGP (see repository for all relevant coding algorithms: https://github.com/alanwoodall/AMP-Epidemiology). Discussion with two independent consultant psychiatrists from general adult and old-age psychiatry subspecialities confirmed that two APMs were rarely prescribed for psychiatric purposes in the UK and are almost exclusively used for non-psychiatric purposes: prochlorperazine (antiemetic) and levomepromazine (palliative care); these were excluded from analysis of total APM use.
Analysis
The primary outcome measure was the number of adults issued a prescription for an APM on ≥6 separate days in each calendar year. Further analysis was undertaken to determine variation in annual prevalence of APM prescribing, QOF disease register coding and main locus of care by psychiatric speciality cohort as age (categorised into those aged 18-64 years, and those aged ≥65 years) for most analyses, to mirror the conventional UK division of care between general adult- and old-age psychiatric subspecialties. The prevalence of the six most common APMs prescribed from primary care over the study period were determined. With regard to the number of people on APM receiving psychiatrist review, we undertook sensitivity analysis varying the period to capture psychiatric review occurrence. The number of patients who had a lifetime history of relevant psychiatric diagnostic codes that would cause inclusion on the QOF SMI, QOF dementia and/or QOF depression registers was determined, along with the number of patients on each disease register prescribed long-term APM. These three psychiatric illness QOF registers cover diagnoses for the majority of potential licensed uses of APM in the United Kingdom [2]. The number of patients prescribed APM not on any of these three psychiatric QOF-registers was also determined. For each year, we determined the proportion of total APM use for patients included in these four register subsets.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was undertaken using StatsDirect (Version 4.0.1, www.statsdirect.com). The Clopper-Pearson method was used for confidence intervals of binomial proportions [29]. Differences between binomial proportions were evaluated using the Miettinen-Nurminen method [30]. Results are presented as the main effect with a 95% confidence interval. A 5% significance level was used to test specific, pre-defined comparisons.
Patient and public involvement
Oversight of the study, data analysis and reporting were made with patient and public advisors who serve on advisory panels for research with the Mental Health Research for Innovation Centre (M-RIC). One author (PS) is a public advisor.
Results
Changes in Prevalence of APM prescribing between 2011 and 2020
Table 1 shows the prevalence of long-term APM exposure in the population in 2011 and 2020 (annual trends are shown in Figure S1). The number of adults ≥18 years exposed to APM increased from 1.06% to 1.45%. This increase is more marked in the 18-64 years population (0.92% in 2011 increasing to 1.46% in 2020). Of individual APMs, quetiapine was the most prescribed APM in this population (increasing from 0.27% in 2011 to 0.64% in 2020), accounting for 75% of the relative increase in APM exposure. For the ≥65 years population, the prevalence of APM exposure has fallen from 1.51% in 2011 to 1.42% in 2020. Risperidone is now the most prescribed APM in the ≥ 65 years population (increasing from 0.17% in 2011 to 0.36% in 2020). Table S2 shows the counts of patients (all ages) receiving long-term APM listed in the British National Formulary in 2011 and 2020, and their licensed indications. The proportion of total long-term APM exposure that is accounted for by ‘second generation’ or ‘atypical’ APMs increased from 79.7% in 2011 to 91.7% in 2020. Approximately 94% of total APM exposures in 2020 are accounted for by 6 individual APMs: quetiapine (37.3%), olanzapine (22.6%), risperidone (15.3%) aripiprazole (12.9%), amisulpride (3.6%) and haloperidol (2.5%).
Proportion of patients prescribed APM receiving psychiatric specialist review
The percentage of adult patients taking APM who received specialist psychiatric review in the 12 months preceding each year (2011-2020) fell from 59.6% to 52.0%; nearly half of all adults prescribed APM were not receiving annual psychiatrist review (Table 2; annual trends are shown in Figure S2). When analysed by psychiatric subspecialty, the proportion of 18–64 year old patients taking regular APM between 2011-2020 that received psychiatrist review in the previous year fell from 65.7% to 55.0%. The greatest decrease in psychiatrist review occurred in patients prescribed quetiapine (-17.0%). For the ≥65 years population, less than half of patients underwent specialist psychiatric review, decreasing from 47.5% in 2011 to 43.4% in 2020. The greatest decrease was seen for those taking amisulpride (-18.2%).
We conducted a sensitivity analysis of psychiatric follow up by varying the period of time allowed between 1 week and up to 5 years prior to 1/1/2020 to confirm data patterns (Figure S3). Of those aged 18-64 years prescribed long-term APM in 2020, 22.9% had no psychiatrist review in the previous 5 years There was variability based on individual APM; those most likely to have had psychiatric review were prescribed aripiprazole (88.5%), while those least likely were prescribed risperidone (70.9%). For those aged >65 years, 29.9% of those taking APM long-term in 2020 had no evidence of psychiatrist review in the previous 5 years. Again, there was variability based on individual APM: those most likely to have had a review were prescribed aripiprazole (84.4%), while those least likely were prescribed haloperidol (61.9%).
Proportions of patients on the psychiatric QOF registers prescribed long-term APM
In 2020, nearly 1 in 63 (1.59%) adults ≥18 years had a lifetime diagnostic code that triggered inclusion on the QOF SMI register, (+0.17% since 2011); 1 in 5 adults (20.7%) had a lifetime diagnostic code that trigged inclusion on the QOF depression register (+5.6% since 2011); 1 in 130 adults (0.77%) had a lifetime diagnostic code that triggered inclusion on the QOF dementia register (+ 0.1% since 2011) (Table 3). For adults not on these three psychiatric illness QOF registers, the proportion fell from 83.7% in 2011, to 78.1% in 2020.
Table 4 shows the proportion of adults (≥18 years) prescribed long-term APM listed in the different QOF register categories (annual trends are shown in Figure S4). For patients on the QOF SMI register, the proportion prescribed APM increased to 39.6% in 2020 (+2.6% since 2011), with olanzapine being the most common exposure in 2020 (11.9%; +0.08% since 2011). For those on the QOF dementia register, the proportion prescribed APM decreased significantly from 16.7% in 2011 to 12.9% in 2020. Risperidone was the most common APM exposure in this group in 2020 (5.45%; +3.85% since 2011). For those on the QOF depression register, the proportion prescribed APM increased from 3.37% in 2011 to 4.12% by 2020; the most common APM exposure in this group in 2020 was to quetiapine (1.91%; +0.78% since 2011). For patients not on any of these three QOF psychiatric illness registers, the proportion prescribed APM increased from 0.26% in 2011 to 0.36% in 2020;. the most common APM exposure in this group in 2020 was to quetiapine (0.13%, +0.06% since 2011).
Proportion of overall long-term APM use by QOF register status
Table 5 shows the proportion of overall long-term APM use for patients who are registered on the QOF SMI, QOF dementia, and/or QOF depression registers, and the proportion of overall long-term APM use for patients not on any of these three QOF psychiatric illness registers (annual trends are shown in Figure S5). The proportion of overall APM use prescribed for patients on the QOF SMI register fell from 50.0% in 2011 to 43.6% by 2020; the lowest proportion was quetiapine (32% in 2020). The proportion of overall APM use for patients on the QOF dementia register fell from 10.7% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2020;, nearly 18% of all long-term risperidone use is for patients on the QOF dementia register. The proportion of APM use prescribed to patients who are registered on the QOF depression register increased from 48.2% in 2011 to 59.0% by 2020; For quetiapine, 71% of total use in 2020 was for patients who have been on the QOF depression register during their life, a 15% increase from 2011 to 2020. The proportion of APM prescribed for patients not on these three registers fell slightly (20.2% in 2011 to 19.2% in 2020). The proportion of haloperidol use was greatest for this group (34.6% in 2011, decreasing to 24.9% in 2020).
Discussion
Principal findings
Our study has shown that:
The prevalence of long-term APM use increased substantially in the adult population (approximately 1 in 69 adults aged ≥18 years were prescribed long-term APM by 2020), with rises most marked in the 18-64 years group (relative increase between 2011 and 2020 was 58%). There is a slight fall in the prevalence of APM use in the ≥65 years population (relative decrease between 2011 and 2020 is 6%).
For patients prescribed long-term APM, the proportion who had an annual review by a psychiatrist fell (relative decrease between 2011 and 2020 was 13%); nearly half of all adults did not have any annual psychiatric review in 2019-2020. This is more pronounced for the ≥ 65 years than the 18-64 years group.
The proportion of people prescribed long-term APM, who are not on the QOF SMI register increased from 50% in 2011 to 56% by 2020, so decreasing the likelihood of cardiometabolic monitoring and increasing the risk of experiencing adverse effects from APM in the adult population.
Our work suggests that APM are increasingly used for unlicensed and/or non-psychotic conditions. The decrease in psychiatric reviews of patients prescribed APM, along with increasing use for conditions that are not captured on the QOF SMI register and thus automatically subject to cardiometabolic monitoring, may combine to increase the risk of people becoming ‘trapped’ on APM in primary care, thus increasing their risk of cardiometabolic morbidity and premature mortality.
Strengths and weaknesses of the study
To our knowledge, this is the first assessment of APM management trends to report the proportions of patients taking these medications who are managed solely in primary care, and first to compare AMP prescribing patterns between different national QOF psychiatric illness registers, and for licenced vs unlicensed use. This study has particular strengths: (1) we focus only on patients who have had ≥6 prescription events annually, to identify patients prescribed long-term APM who are most at risk of cardiometabolic disease. (2) SAIL is a large databank with rich cross-referencing between primary and secondary care (inpatient and outpatient contact) datasets for each patient, so identifying shared management trends by primary care and psychiatric services. Limitations of this study include: (1) SAIL databank obtains data exclusively from NHS Wales services, so caution should be applied when generalising findings to other populations. (2) SAIL databank cannot provide number of tablets issued per script, so quantification of APM burden is limited. (3) We only capture APM exposure where the patient receives a prescription from NHS primary care and do not capture where prescriptions are issued to patients privately, those registered with Armed Forces or prison primary health care services, and those issued directly by secondary care (which will include most intramuscular depot APM prescriptions); the oral APM clozapine is also classified as high risk and licensed in the UK only for issue by psychiatrists so would not be routinely captured [31]; these represent potential missing data in the population we are not able to measure. (4) We have not identified patients being prescribed ≥2 APMs concurrently. (5) With regards to psychiatrist review, our case definitions will not have identified indirect patient management between GPs and psychiatrists (e.g. communication without seeing the patient), nor will it have identified patient contact with non-prescribing mental health team members who may provide input into APM review (these are, however not able to make APM prescribing changes). (7) Use of lifetime prevalence of diagnostic codes to determine patient exposure to QOF SMI, QOF Dementia and QOF Depression registers, as other studies have done [7], will not detect changes in psychiatric diagnoses that can happen over time (e.g., a person may initially have a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder (and so be recorded on the QOF SMI register) that is later revised to personality disorder (a diagnosis not captured on the QOF-SMI register, but the patient will still be counted on the QOF-SMI register due to lifetime coding). However, psychiatric codes are often inaccurate and not maintained regularly [32], or removed from GP records when an updated one is added (e.g. the above patient with personality disorder may still have a code of schizoaffective disorder which is not replaced with the new diagnostic code); up to 32% of psychiatric indications for APM use could not be clearly established in a recent study, which limits accuracy [33].
Comparison with other studies and need for future research
We found a significant increase in adults exposed to long-term APM. The prevalences we report are consistent with other studies; Marston et al reported that 0.6-0.7% of the population had exposure to APM in their cohort study which ended in 2011 [7]; Shoham et al report an APM prevalence of 1.2% in 2014 in a questionnaire survey of those aged ≥16 years [34]. The greatest increase is for quetiapine, which accounted for 44% of all APM exposures in the 18-64 years group by 2020. Despite this increase in APM use, rates of psychiatric illness prevalence (as reported on the 3 psychiatric illness QOF registers) have not increased proportionally in this population; this suggests increasing APM use is for non-psychotic disorders, such as anxiety, depression and personality disorder, as has been reported elsewhere [3, 7, 33]. Lack of access to appropriate psychological therapies is reported as driving increasing APM use in non-psychotic disorders [18]. Prevalence of long-term APM exposure in the ≥65 years population has decreased slightly, with significant falls in patients with dementia (-3.85% (95%CI: -4.64, -3.06)); this is promising, given the increased risk of mortality reported when APM are used long term in patients with Alzheimer’s disease [35]. However, use of long-term risperidone in dementia patients has increased significantly (+3.85% (95%CI +3.43, +4.27). The UK licence for risperidone is for ’short-term treatment (up to 6 weeks) of persistent aggression in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s dementia unresponsive to non-pharmacological interventions and when there is a risk of harm to self or others’ [2], and yet nearly 1 in 19 patients with dementia are prescribed risperidone long-term; studies report pressure on clinicians to use APM for patients with dementia in care homes, often as a result of shortages of staff trained in non-pharmacological interventions [18].
We found decreasing proportions of patients prescribed APM have had a psychiatric review in the preceding 12 months. One possible explanation may be more APM being prescribed independently by GPs; this study does not allow determination of which clinician initiated APM, but qualitative studies suggest that GPs are not confident to initiate APM without psychiatrist input [18, 21, 36], so we suspect this is unlikely. However, much of the rise in APM use in the 18-64 year group is due to quetiapine; one possibility is the use of low doses quetiapine for sedation instead of benzodiazepines [37] and/or as an adjunct to difficult-to-treat depression by GPs and psychiatrists. Another possible explanation is that more patients are discharged on APM by psychiatrists to primary care, either when the patients with SMI are “stable” from a psychiatric perspective, or when APM are prescribed to patients who do not have psychotic illness, such as personality disorder, anxiety, or depression. This may be due to psychiatrists feeling they do not need to continue specialist input in the patient’s care, but many psychiatrists report pressure from managers to discharge all those patients who do not have SMI from their outpatient clinics [18]. Further research to determine APM initiation rates in primary care and management of APM for non-psychotic illness is required. [18, 21, 36]
While the prevalence of APM exposure is rising, the proportion of total APM use for patients with a psychotic illness history (inclusion on QOF SMI register) is decreasing; only 44% of APM use in 2020 was for patients with a history of SMI; this is similar to the proportion used for SMI (36%) reported by Marston et al [7]. This supports our concern that APM is being increasingly used long-term for non-psychotic disorders, often off-licence and in contravention of NICE guidelines (e.g. for personality disorder where APM should only be used short-term) [38].
Only the QOF SMI register funds GPs to undertake cardiometabolic monitoring of patients taking APM; 56% of patients prescribed long-term APM are not on this disease register, and GPs are not funded to undertake cardiometabolic monitoring for these patients. We suspect many GPs still perform unfunded cardiometabolic monitoring when APM are used in non-SMI conditions. However, with most cardiometabolic monitoring devolved to GP practices even when a patient remains under secondary care, there is a risk patients taking APM long-term may not have cardiometabolic monitoring undertaken, as primary care utilise automated QOF SMI register recalls to facilitate this. A patient coded on the QOF SMI register will get annual recall for cardiometabolic monitoring and GP review, whereas patients taking APM who are coded only on the QOF dementia or QOF depression registers do not get automatic recall, as there is no QOF requirement to undertake cardiometabolic monitoring, so this is less likely to happen. For a patient prescribed long-term APM for personality disorders, anxiety, or autism, and thus who is not captured on any QOF psychiatric illness register, there is no funding or automatic recall for GP review, or for cardiometabolic monitoring. GPs are supposed to conduct annual medication reviews, but research shows that these are of often incomplete, often of variable effectiveness, and limited action occurs particularly when APM is involved and there is no ongoing psychiatric input due to GP reluctant to change these medications [18, 21, 36, 39].
Implications for clinicians and policymakers
This study confirms that there is a rising burden of APM use in primary care in the UK, up to 2020. Fewer patients receive annual psychiatric review, as more are discharged to primary care for sole management. More APM is prescribed for off-licence and/or non-psychotic illness that are not captured on the QOF SMI register, meaning cardiometabolic monitoring and specialist review may not occur. There is an urgent need for appropriate resources to be provided so that patients taking APM long-term have access to an annual review with a psychiatrist able to optimise, switch or withdraw APM, and that primary care funding for cardiometabolic monitoring is based on the use of APM, rather than solely due to inclusion on the QOF-SMI register due to diagnosis. Without changes in the provision of such safeguards, there is a risk that increasing numbers of people will remain ‘trapped’ on APMs long-term without effective psychiatrist review affording the opportunities to stop these medications, increasing their risk of developing cardiometabolic disease and contributing to premature mortality in patients with psychiatric illnesses.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Contributors
AW, IB, SS, LW and FSM conceived and designed the study. AW, IB, SS, LW and FSM obtained funding. AW, AG, and HC acquired and analysed the data. AW interpreted the data. AW drafted the initial manuscript. PS provided patient and public oversight. AW, FSM, LW, IB, SS, AG and PS critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. AW and IB did the statistical analyses. AW, AG, and HC had full access to all the data in the study. AW and IB take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. They are the guarantors. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.
Funding
AW is funded by a Heath and Care Wales Research Time Award (RTA-NHS-21-02)
Ethical Approval
The use of data from the SAIL databank was approved by the SAIL Information Governance Research Panel. As this study did not use person identifiable data no formal NHS research ethics committee approval was required. No data were reported where an output would have <5 individual counts.
Dedication
This work is dedicated to the memory of our friend and research colleague, Huw Collins, who sadly died unexpectedly during this project.
Acknowledgements
This study makes use of anonymised data held in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. We would like to acknowledge all the data providers who make anonymised data available for research. We want to thank members of SAIL, especially Dr Sarah Rees, who supported the researchers during this project. We are also grateful to consultant psychiatrist colleagues Dr Ben Shooter, and Dr Adnan Sharaf, who provided insight into psychiatric APM use in the UK, clinic appointment structures and recall methods.
Footnotes
↵† Deceased
Emails:
Alan Woodall: alan.woodall{at}wales.nhs.uk
Alex Gampel: alexandra.gampel{at}wales.nhs.uk
Huw Collins (deceased; no ORCID/email provided)
Lauren Walker: lauren.walker{at}liverpool.ac.uk
Frances Mair: frances.mair{at}glasgow.ac.uk
Sally Sheard: sheard{at}liverpool.ac.uk
Pyers Symon: pyers.symon{at}zen.co.uk (public advisor)
Iain Buchan: buchan{at}liverpool.ac.uk
Abbreviations
- APM
- Antipsychotic Medication
- GP
- General Practitioner (Family Medicine physician outside the UK)
- NICE
- National Institute of Health and Care Excellence
- OPDW
- Outpatient Dataset for Wales (secondary care outpatient appointment dataset)
- PEDW
- Patient Episode Dataset for Wales (hospital admission dataset)
- QOF
- Quality and Outcomes Framework
- SAIL
- Secure Anonymised Information Linkage
- SMI
- Serious Mental Illness
- WLGP
- Welsh Longitudinal General Practice (dataset)