Page Section: Breadcrumbs
you are here:
Home
> Decisions & Case Notes > Case Notes > Prescription of antipsychotic medication inappropriate to patient with Parkinson's disease (03HDC06279)
Page Section: Left Content Column
Page Section: Centre Content Column
Prescription of antipsychotic medication inappropriate to patient with Parkinson's disease (03HDC06279)
Download Prescription of antipsychotic medication inappropriate to patient with Parkinson's disease (03HDC06279) (PDF 14Kb)
(03HDC06279, 29 July 2004)
Psychiatrist ~ Hospital ~ Parkinson's disease ~ Lewy Body
dementia ~ Management of aggressive patient ~ Prescription of
Acuphase ~ Review of antipsychotic medication ~ Right 4(1)
A 67-year-old man was admitted to
hospital for assessment of his deteriorating Parkinson's disease.
At the time of his admission, he was functioning independently but
experiencing episodes of paranoia and aggression. Whether the cause
of these behaviours was Lewy Body dementia (LBD) had not been
ascertained.
While in hospital, the man had an aggressive episode and threatened
nursing staff. The police were called in to help subdue him. The
house surgeon consulted the on-call psychiatrist by telephone about
appropriate management. The psychiatrist recommended administering
oral quetiapine - an antipsychotic especially useful for
controlling aggression in patients with Parkinson's disease. If it
could not be administered, they were to inject the man with 200mg
of the antipsychotic Acuphase. The patient refused to take the
quetiapine and so was injected with Acuphase, while being
restrained by the police.
The Acuphase was intended to keep the man sedated for up to three
days, but he remained in a deep sleep for four days, and continued
to experience variable states of consciousness over the next few
weeks. He never recovered his pre-admission level of
functioning.
The psychiatrist had advised that the patient would need to be
given an anti-Parkinsonian drug over 24 hours to counteract the
side effects Acuphase has on patients with Parkinson's disease. He
recommended that the man be started on twice-daily quetiapine,
three days after the Acuphase, and that the man's current
antipsychotic and antidepressant medications be stopped.
The Commissioner's expert psychiatric advisor noted that the man's
age and his Parkinson's disease put him at "considerable risk of
developing extrapyramidal side effects". A vulnerable person, such
as someone with Parkinson's disease, should receive Acuphase only
in reduced doses and with caution. Acuphase is recommended only for
Parkinson's patients who do not have complications such as LBD;
there was insufficient information to conclude that the man had
LBD. While it was not inappropriate to prescribe Acuphase in an
acute situation such as existed that night, the dose prescribed was
excessive. The addition of quetiapine, three days after the
Acuphase, prolonged and perpetuated the adverse effects of the
Acuphase. Moreover, it was inappropriate to prescribe quetiapine on
the night the Acuphase was administered, as there was no reason to
anticipate that the man would become aggressive again, especially
given the man's declining clinical condition.
The dosage of Acuphase prescribed, and the prescription of
quetiapine, amounted to a breach of Right 4(1) by the
psychiatrist.
The hospital was also found to have breached Right 4(1).
Although a number of health professionals were involved in
assessing the man's condition, investigations were carried out to
try to identify the cause of his ongoing sedation, and his ongoing
problems were actively managed, no one reviewed the man's overall
clinical picture. While it was important to prevent another episode
where the man could endanger staff, in the absence of his
responsible clinician (who was on leave), it was up to the treating
clinicians to determine whether it was appropriate to continue to
sedate him, and to find a balance that would enable him to be cared
for in the least restrictive manner. That did not occur.
The nursing care given to the man was found to be appropriate to
the circumstances.
It was noted that the provision of a secure area, with
appropriately trained staff, for patients admitted to the
assessment, treatment and rehabilitation ward would better protect
staff and patients and enable more appropriate management of
similar events.
Page Section: Right Content Column
Top of Page