Search results

BACKGROUND: The primary care setting has been regarded in government policy and the scientific literature as an ideal setting for the work needed to meet the Health of the Nation drug and alcohol targets. Although studies have pointed to the negative attitudes held by general practitioners (GPs) towards alcohol- and drug-misusing patients, there has been no direct comparison of the work and attitudes of the GP towards these patients. AIM: To compare the work and attitudes of GPs towards alcohol- and drug-misusing patients. METHOD: All GPs in an outer London area (157 doctors) were surveyed, using an eight-page postal questionnaire, collecting clinical and attitudinal data alongside demographics and practice information. A response rate of 52% was achieved. RESULTS: General practitioners reported working with only 3.5 patients drinking above recommended guidelines in the previous four working weeks, and even fewer drug-using patients (0.75). While they viewed the alcohol-misusing patients negatively, the drug misuser elicited substantially more negative attitudes. The primary care setting was seen as appropriate to work with the alcohol-misusing patient but not with drug users. Training and support from local services would encourage substantially more GPs to work with alcohol misusers but not with drug misusers. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that there are some cautious grounds for optimism that GPs are willing to work with alcohol misusers; however, with regard to drug misusers, we find a GP workforce that is only minimally involved with this group and would not be greatly encouraged by the provision of additional training, support, or incentives. The Health of the Nation targets are not being met, and GPs are not detecting adequate numbers of the patients at whom these targets are aimed. Emphasis has been placed on the role of primary care, but the real achievements that can be made require detection of the less severe drinkers and injecting drug misusers.

Naloxone is a well-established essential medicine for the treatment of life-threatening heroin/opioid overdose in emergency medicine. Over two decades, the concept of 'take-home naloxone' has evolved, comprising pre-provision of an emergency supply to laypersons likely to witness an opioid overdose (e.g. peers and family members of people who use opioids as well as non-medical personnel), with the recommendation to administer the naloxone to the overdose victim as interim care while awaiting an ambulance. There is an urgent need for more widespread naloxone access considering the growing problem of opioid overdose deaths, accounting for more than 100,000 deaths worldwide annually. Rises in mortality are particularly sharp in North America, where the ongoing prescription opioid problem is now overlaid with a rapid growth in overdose deaths from heroin and illicit fentanyl. Using opioids alone is dangerous, and the mortality risk is clustered at certain times and contexts, including on prison release and discharge from hospital and residential care. The provision of take-home naloxone has required the introduction of new legislation and new naloxone products. These include pre-filled syringes and auto-injectors and, crucially, new concentrated nasal sprays (four formulations recently approved in different countries) with speed of onset comparable to intramuscular naloxone and relative bioavailability of approximately 40–50%. Choosing the right naloxone dose in the fentanyl era is a matter of ongoing debate, but the safety margin of the approved nasal sprays is superior to improvised nasal kits. New legislation in different countries permits over-the-counter sales or other prescription-free methods of provision. However, access remains uneven with take-home naloxone still not provided in many countries and communities, and with ongoing barriers contributing to implementation inertia. Take-home naloxone is an important component of the response to the global overdose problem, but greater commitment to implementation will be essential, alongside improved affordable products, if a greater impact is to be achieved.

The present study is a cross-sectional interview-based investigation comparing experiences of and attitudes towards Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) in a sample of 200 patients attending inpatient substance misuse detoxification services. Two hundred consecutive admissions were recruited; 100 each from one drug and one alcohol in-patient treatment service in which attendance at AA/NA was a voluntary adjunct to a generic treatment programme. Although there were no differences in the history of AA/NA attendance, the drug users (who were on average younger) reported significantly more positive attitudes towards AA/NA, more willingness to attend during their in-patient treatment and greater intention to attend following completion of their detoxification. In particular, despite no differences in spiritual/religious orientation, the drug users reported more positive views of the Twelve Steps. As AA/NA remain popular and accessible forms of substance misuse support, it is critical that we develop a clearer understanding of their impact and of the scope for their integration with generic forms of substance misuse treatment.

This study investigates changes in neuropsychological functioning during early abstinence from alcohol. 30 alcohol-dependent inpatients were tested at intake (day 4 of admission) and post detoxification (day 26), using a test-retest design. The neuropsychological battery included measures of pre-morbid IQ, full-scale IQ, verbal and non-verbal measures of memory and executive function. IQ was within the normal range at intake and comparable with age-adjusted normative values and there were some impairments in memory and executive function. There were significant increases in performance scores post detoxification in working memory, verbal fluency and verbal inhibition but not in non-verbal executive function tasks (mental flexibility and planning ability). Despite increased scores on tests of verbal and memory skills after 3 weeks of abstinence, complex executive abilities showed little change. These may have a negative impact on engagement and response to treatment and compromise clinical outcomes, heightening the risk of relapse.