No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2023
The aim of this audit was to look into the services’ fidelity of Naloxone provision and training across the Essex wide area compared with local guidelines as well as national guidelines (UK guidelines on clinical management of drug misuse and dependence, 2017)
The electronic records database for substance misuse services (THESEUS) was used for extracting the data. A total of 1991 patient records were analysed out of these 885 patient records were excluded, as these patients had never injected heroin. The remaining 1106 patient records were treated as the QUALIFYING POPULATION. A time frame period of 3 years (2019 to 2021) was further applied to the qualifying population, which resulted in 700 patient records being analysed for Naloxone data.
Naloxone provision was recorded under two different headings in the electronic database. The first heading, Naloxone episode – indicated the discussion held by the professional with the patient regarding the use of Naloxone. The second heading, Naloxone event – indicated the actual event of Naloxone being provided to the patient by a professional. There was a lack of clarity on both episode and events data capture regarding previously injected status.
Another important finding was that in the NON-QUALIFYING POPULATION i.e., patients who have never injected heroin in the past were provided with Naloxone for 367 patients, although this is a good practice it comes at the expense of missing out on providing Naloxone to patients who would definitely need it (OUALIFYING POPULATION)
1. The robustness of the data collection done by the professionals was commendable, but this was let down by the ambiguity and obscurity of the data recorded on two different headings (episode and events)
2. There was evidence of Naloxone being provided to the patients who have not injected heroin
3. There was accurate documentation on the type of Naloxone being issued (Injectable vs Nasal)
4. There was sparse documentation on the Naloxone training provision within the electronic system.
Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.
You have
Access
Open access
eLetters
No eLetters have been published for this article.