The purpose of this paper is to examine the current provision of opioid substitution therapy (OST) during and immediately following release from detention in prisons in England and Wales.A group of experts was convened to comment on current practices and to make recommendations for improving OST management in prison. Current practices were previously assessed using an online survey and a focus group with experience of OST in prison (Webster, 2017).Disruption to the management of addiction and reduced treatment choice for OST adversely influences adequate provision of OST in prison. A key concern was the routine diversion of opiate substitutes to other prisoners. The new controlled drug formulations were considered a positive development to ensure streamlined and efficient OST administration. The following patient populations were identified as having concerns beyond their opioid use, and therefore require additional considerations in prison: older people with comorbidities and complex treatment needs; women who have experienced trauma and have childcare issues; and those with existing mental health needs requiring effective understanding and treatment in prison.Integration of clinical and psychosocial services would enable a joint care plan to be tailored for each individual with opioid dependence and include options for detoxification or maintenance treatment. This would better enable those struggling with opioid use to make informed choices concerning their care during incarceration and for the period immediately following their release. Improvements in coordination of OST would facilitate inclusion of strategies to further streamline this process for the benefit of prisoners and prison staff.
Background: The collection of patient experience feedback (PEF) has seen a marked global increase in the past decade. Research about PEF has concentrated mainly on hospital settings albeit a recent interest in primary care. There has been minimal research about PEF in the prison healthcare setting. The aim of this study was to explore the role of prison PEF, the different forms it might take and the perceptions of healthcare staff and people in prison. Methods: Qualitative face to face interview study involving 24 participants across two prisons (male and female) in the North of England, involving 12 healthcare staff and 12 patients. Framework analysis was undertaken. Results: PEF sources were variable, from informal and verbal through to formal and written. The willingness of people in prison to give PEF related to whether they felt sufficiently comfortable to raise concerns, with some feeling too frightened and having apprehension about anonymity. It was viewed as disheartening to give PEF but not be informed of any outcome. Healthcare staff opinions about PEF were divergent but they found PEF unhelpful when it was about prison regime issues rather than healthcare. Suggestions for improving the PEF process were put forward and included accessibility, anonymity and digitalisation. Conclusions: This is the first study to report findings about prison PEF. There are broad similarities between our findings and research examining hospital-based PEF. Prison healthcare services seem to be listening to patients but the ways in which PEF is collected, considered and used could be improved.
For the past ten years, the UK Government has attempted ‘to improve the health and wealth of the nation through research’. Investment into the NIHR and its CRNs has helped make the healthcare system safer, more effective and cost-efficient, as well as improve the research agenda. However, due to commissioning and the service contract tendering process, changes in contract provider (specifically to non-NHS organisations) can hamper ongoing clinical research, affecting both organisations and patients. This paper explores the issues and discusses next steps in the continuity of research activity.
Injecting drug users (IDUs) are at the greatest risk of hepatitis C infection by using any item of injecting equipment that has come into contact with contaminated blood. Alongside this, homeless IDUs have been identified as being at increased risk of harm in their illicit drug taking behaviour. This study interviewed 17 hepatitis C positive homeless IDUs about their injecting practices. In-depth interviews explored the impact of a positive hepatitis C diagnosis on their injecting and identified their risk behaviours and perceptions. The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed using the framework approach. Homeless IDUs engaged in both high risk and unhygienic injecting practices, such as using drugs outside and in public places, sharing injecting equipment and re-using cleaned needles. Excessive needle reuse whilst in prison was also identified. However, the findings were not universally bleak as a positive diagnosis of hepatitis C did lead to some behaviour change towards safer injecting and some adopted other lifestyle and behaviour changes. It was, however, common for homeless people to devolve responsibility for preventing hepatitis C transmission to their peers, especially when injecting with others. Knowledge regarding possible transmission through injecting paraphernalia appeared to make users more careful to reduce it through these routes. Placing a continuous emphasis on health promotion is therefore important in educating IDUs about the hepatitis C transmission risks associated with injecting drug use. Information regarding safer and hygienic use, including accurate information regarding the most effective methods to clean used equipment, must be re-enforced by people working with homeless injecting drug users.
ABSTRACT FROM : Rich JD, McKenzie M, Larney S, et al . Methadone continuation versus forced withdrawal on incarceration in a combined US prison and jail: a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2015;386:350–9.
Methadone maintenance is effective at reducing the harmful behaviours associated with illicit opioid use.1 The weight of evidence from intervention and observational studies highlights that being prescribed methadone maintenance leads to a reduction in mortality, heroin use, injecting and criminal activity.1 ,2 However, exposure to methadone maintenance is inversely related to a user's chances of achieving long-term cessation and therefore long-term prescribing remains contentious.2 Methadone programmes can be implemented safely in prison settings, yet internationally there are significant political and cultural barriers to maintaining drug users on methadone therapy following reception into prison.3
This was a randomised open label controlled trial. The study participants were male and female prisoners of Rhode Island Department …
Many drug users present to primary care requesting detoxification from illicit opiates. There are a number of detoxification agents but no recommended drug of choice. The purpose of this study is to compare buprenorphine with dihydrocodeine for detoxification from illicit opiates in primary care. Open label randomised controlled trial in NHS Primary Care (General Practices), Leeds, UK. Sixty consenting adults using illicit opiates received either daily sublingual buprenorphine or daily oral dihydrocodeine. Reducing regimens for both interventions were at the discretion of prescribing doctor within a standard regimen of not more than 15 days. Primary outcome was abstinence from illicit opiates at final prescription as indicated by a urine sample. Secondary outcomes during detoxification period and at three and six months post detoxification were recorded. Only 23% completed the prescribed course of detoxification medication and gave a urine sample on collection of their final prescription. Risk of non-completion of detoxification was reduced if allocated buprenorphine (68% vs 88%, RR 0.58 CI 0.35–0.96, p = 0.065). A higher proportion of people allocated to buprenorphine provided a clean urine sample compared with those who received dihydrocodeine (21% vs 3%, RR 2.06 CI 1.33–3.21, p = 0.028). People allocated to buprenorphine had fewer visits to professional carers during detoxification and more were abstinent at three months (10 vs 4, RR 1.55 CI 0.96–2.52) and six months post detoxification (7 vs 3, RR 1.45 CI 0.84–2.49). Informative randomised trials evaluating routine care within the primary care setting are possible amongst drug using populations. This small study generates unique data on commonly used treatment regimens.
Introduction: Treatment of opioid dependence with buprenorphine improves outcomes. Typical dosing ranges for all patients from clinical evidence and as defined in the product information are wide. For specific groups with complex clinical scenarios, there is no clear consensus on dosing choices to achieve best possible outcomes.Areas covered: The doses of buprenorphine used in 6 European countries was reviewed. A review of published evidence supported rapid induction with buprenorphine and the benefits of higher doses but did not identify clearly useful guidance on dosing choices for groups with complex clinical scenarios. An expert group of physicians with experience in addiction care participated in a discussion meeting to share clinical practice experience and develop a consensus on dosing choices.Expert opinion: There was general agreement that treatment outcomes can be improved by optimising buprenorphine doses in specific subgroups. Specific groups in whom buprenorphine doses may be too low and who could have better outcomes with optimised dosing were identified on the basis of clinical practice experience. These groups include people with severe addiction, high tolerance to opioids, and psychiatric comorbidities. In these groups it is recommended to review dosing choices to ensure buprenorphine dosing is sufficient.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)