Laura Sheard

Barriers to accessing generic health and social care services: a qualitative study of injecting drug users

While research has clearly documented the difficulties injectors encounter in accessing specialist addiction services, there is less evidence of the problems they face when securing general health care and non-substance-misuse-specific support. This paper seeks to fill some of these knowledge gaps. Between January and May 2006, 75 current injectors were recruited and interviewed through three needle exchange programmes located in diverse geographical areas of West Yorkshire. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework. Findings showed that injectors were often positive about the help they received from generic health and social care services. Nonetheless, they identified a range of barriers relating to inability to access desired assistance, the burden of appointments, travel to services, stigma and negative staff attitudes, personal ill-health, lack of material resources, and anxieties about accessing support. Although some types of barriers were more evident at some services than at others and/or affected particular subgroups of injector more than others, the impact of any barrier was contingent on a range of factors. These included the attitudes of individual professionals, the circumstances and needs of individual injectors, the local availability of suitable alternative services, and the frequency with which a service needed to be accessed. In order to better understand and potentially reduce service barriers, findings are linked to broader conceptual and theoretical debates relating to social exclusion and Foucaults analyses of power and knowledge.While research has clearly documented the difficulties injectors encounter in accessing specialist addiction services, there is less evidence of the problems they face when securing general health care and non-substance-misuse-specific support. This paper seeks to fill some of these knowledge gaps. Between January and May 2006, 75 current injectors were recruited and interviewed through three needle exchange programmes located in diverse geographical areas of West Yorkshire. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework. Findings showed that injectors were often positive about the help they received from generic health and social care services. Nonetheless, they identified a range of barriers relating to inability to access desired assistance, the burden of appointments, travel to services, stigma and negative staff attitudes, personal ill-health, lack of material resources, and anxieties about accessing support. Although some types of barriers were more evident at some services than at others and/or affected particular subgroups of injector more than others, the impact of any barrier was contingent on a range of factors. These included the attitudes of individual professionals, the circumstances and needs of individual injectors, the local availability of suitable alternative services, and the frequency with which a service needed to be accessed. In order to better understand and potentially reduce service barriers, findings are linked to broader conceptual and theoretical debates relating to social exclusion and Foucaults analyses of power and knowledge.

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) prisons project: a randomised controlled trial comparing dihydrocodeine and buprenorphine for opiate detoxification

BackgroundMany opiate users entering British prisons require prescribed medication to help them achieve abstinence. This commonly takes the form of a detoxification regime. Previously, a range of detoxification agents have been prescribed without a clear evidence base to recommend a drug of choice. There are few trials and very few in the prison setting. This study compares dihydrocodeine with buprenorphine.MethodsOpen label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial in a large remand prison in the North of England. Ninety adult male prisoners requesting an opiate detoxification were randomised to receive either daily sublingual buprenorphine or daily oral dihydrocodeine, given in the context of routine care. All participants gave written, informed consent. Reducing regimens were within a standard regimen of not more than 20 days and were at the discretion of the prescribing doctor. Primary outcome was abstinence from illicit opiates as indicated by a urine test at five days post detoxification. Secondary outcomes were collected during the detoxification period and then at one, three and six months post detoxification. Analysis was undertaken using relative risk tests for categorical data and unpaired t-tests for continuous data.Results64% of those approached took part in the study. 63 men (70%) gave a urine sample at five days post detoxification. At the completion of detoxification, by intention to treat analysis, a higher proportion of people allocated to buprenorphine provided a urine sample negative for opiates (abstinent) compared with those who received dihydrocodeine (57% vs 35%, RR 1.61 CI 1.02–2.56). At the 1, 3 and 6 month follow-up points, there were no significant differences for urine samples negative for opiates between the two groups. Follow up rates were low for those participants who had subsequently been released into the community.ConclusionThese findings would suggest that dihydrocodeine should not be routinely used for detoxification from opiates in the prison setting. The high relapse rate amongst those achieving abstinence would suggest the need for an increased emphasis upon opiate maintenance programmes in the prison setting.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN07752728

‘Anything Could Have Happened’: Women, the Night-time Economy, Alcohol and Drink Spiking

This article explores how 40 women interviewed in the north of England used spaces in the night-time economy and consumed alcohol. The most significant issues were: age of the women, risk and ‘luck’, drink spiking, and night-time economy spaces themselves. The notion of safety (and strategies for ensuring safety) is illustrated. Palpable fear existed for the women interviewed, related to concerns about unprovoked violence towards them by (male) users of the night-time economy. These fears are embedded within a rich exploration of the embodied experience of being a female consumer and actor within alcohol-centred night-time spaces.

Non-commercial clinical trials of a medicinal product: can they survive the current process of research approvals in the UK?

Over recent years, considerable attention has been paid to the National Health Service (NHS) research governance and ethics approvals process in the UK. New regulations mean that approval from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is now also needed for conducting all clinical trials. Practical experience of gaining MHRA and sponsorship approval has yet to be described and critically explored in the literature. Our experience, from start to finish, of applying for these four approvals for a multicentre randomised controlled trial of two licensed drugs for opiate detoxification in the prison setting is described here. In addition, the implications of the approvals process for research projects, particularly clinical trials, in terms of time and funding, and also indirect implications for NHS patients are discussed. Inconsistencies are discussed and suggestions that could improve and streamline the overall process are made. The current approvals process could now be hindering non-commercial clinical trials, leading to a loss of important evidence-based medical information.

Can staff and patient perspectives on hospital safety predict harm-free care? An analysis of staff and patient survey data and routinely collected outcomes

Background Patients have the potential to provide feedback on the safety of their care. Recently, tools have been developed that ask patients to provide feedback on those factors that are known to contribute to safety, therefore providing information that can be used proactively to manage safety in hospitals. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the safety information provided by patients is different from that provided by staff and whether it is related to safety outcomes. Method Data were collected from 33 hospital wards across 3 acute hospital Trusts in the UK. Staff on these wards were asked to complete the four outcome measures of the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture, while patients were asked to complete the Patient Measure of Safety and the friends and family test. We also collated publicly reported safety outcome data for ‘harm-free care’ on each ward. This patient safety thermometer measure is used in the UK NHS to record the percentage of patients on a single day of each month on every ward who have received harm-free care (ie, no pressure ulcers, falls, urinary tract infections and hospital acquired new venous thromboembolisms). These data were used to address questions about the relationship between measures and the extent to which patient and staff perceptions of safety predict safety outcomes. Results The friends and family test, a single item measure of patient experience was associated with patients’ perceptions of safety, but was not associated with safety outcomes. Staff responses to the patient safety culture survey were not significantly correlated with patient responses to the patient measure of safety, but both independently predicted safety outcomes. The regression models showed that staff perceptions (adjusted r2=0.39) and patient perceptions (adjusted r2=0.30) of safety independently predicted safety outcomes. When entered together both measures accounted for 49% of the variance in safety outcomes (adjusted r2=0.49), suggesting that there is overlap but some unique variance is also explained by these two measures. Based on responses to the Patient Measure of Safety it was also possible to identify differences between the acute Hospital Trusts. Discussion The findings suggest that although the views of patients and staff predict some overlapping variance in patient safety outcomes, both also offer a unique perspective on patient safety, contributing independently to the prediction of safety outcomes. These findings suggest that feedback from patients about the safety of the care that they receive can be used, in addition to data from staff to drive safety improvements in healthcare. Trial registration number ISRCTN07689702.

Exchange, deceit, risk and harm: The consequences for women of receiving injections from other drug users

Aims: To explore the consequences for women of being injected with illicit drugs. Methods: In-depth interviews with 45 women injecting drug users who have been injected by other people. Findings: Womens reliance on others to administer injections meant they had less control over their drug use. Exchanging drugs as currency for being injected was common and women had little choice but to provide the injector with drugs. Being injected by others often caused the recipient physical harm. Previous experience of deception and harm meant women became more knowledgeable about their injectors intentions and subsequently tried to reduce future damage when being injected. Women appeared to be confused about the risks associated with being injected and the perceived risks were often complex and polarized. Understanding the context and nature of being injected is important for services when working with injection recipients. Conclusions: This work uncovered ideas about a complex area and highlights the importance for those working with drug users to pay attention to this. Increased training and awareness for drug-service staff about factors influencing being injected and the potential associated risks is recommended. Reinforcing current harm-reduction messages and providing related advice to injection recipients is also important. In improving the knowledge and awareness about being injected, women recipients may gain increased choice and agency in the injection process.

Diagnosis and management of people with venous thromboembolism and advanced cancer: how do doctors decide? a qualitative study

BackgroundThe treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) is well established, with level 1A evidence to support the recommendation of a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) by daily injection for 3–6 months. However, registry data suggest compliance to clinical guidelines is poor. Clinicians face particular challenges in treating CAT in advanced cancer patients due to shorter life expectancy, increased bleeding risk and concerns that self injection may be too burdensome. For these reasons decision making around the diagnosis and management of CAT in people with advanced cancer, can be complex, and should focus on its likely net benefit for the patient. We explored factors that influence doctors’ decision making in this situation and sought to gain an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to the application of best practice.MethodsThink aloud exercises using standardised case scenarios, and individual in depth interviews were conducted. All were transcribed. The think aloud exercises were analysed using Protocol Analysis and the interviews using Framework Analysis.Participants: 46 participants took part in the think aloud exercises and 45 participants were interviewed in depth. Each group included oncologists, palliative physicians and general practitioners and included both senior doctors and those in training.Setting: Two Strategic Health Authority regions, one in the north of England and one in Wales.ResultsThe following key issues arose from the data synthesis: the importance of patient prognosis; the concept of “appropriateness”; “benefits and burdens” of diagnosis and treatment; LMWH or warfarin for treatment and sources of information which changed practice. Although interlinked, they do describe distinct aspects of the factors that influence doctors in their decisions in this area.ConclusionsThe above factors are issues doctors take into account when deciding whether to send a patient to hospital for investigation or to anticoagulate a patient with confirmed or suspected VTE. Many factors interweave and are themselves influenced by and dependent on each other. It is only after all are taken into account that the doctor arrives at the point of referring the patient for investigation. Some factors including logistic and organisational issues appeared to influence whether a patient would be investigated or treated with LMWH for a confirmed VTE. It is important that services are optimised to ensure that these do not hinder the appropriate investigation and management of individual patients.

Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment intervention. Design A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Clusters were 33 hospital wards within five hospitals in the UK. Participants All patients able to give informed consent were eligible to take part. Wards were allocated to the intervention or control condition. Intervention The ward-level intervention comprised two tools: (1) a questionnaire that asked patients about factors contributing to safety (patient measure of safety (PMOS)) and (2) a proforma for patients to report both safety concerns and positive experiences (patient incident reporting tool). Feedback was considered in multidisciplinary action planning meetings. Measurements Primary outcomes were routinely collected ward-level harm-free care (HFC) scores and patient-level feedback on safety (PMOS). Results Intervention uptake and retention of wards was 100% and patient participation was high (86%). We found no significant effect of the intervention on any outcomes at 6 or 12 months. However, for new harms (ie, those for which the wards were directly accountable) intervention wards did show greater, though non-significant, improvement compared with control wards. Analyses also indicated that improvements were largest for wards that showed the greatest compliance with the intervention. Limitations Adherence to the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. Patient safety outcomes may represent too blunt a measure. Conclusions Patients are willing to provide feedback about the safety of their care. However, we were unable to demonstrate any overall effect of this intervention on either measure of patient safety and therefore cannot recommend this intervention for wider uptake. Findings indicate promise for increasing HFC where wards implement ≥75% of the intervention components. Trial registration number ISRCTN07689702; pre-results.

Buprenorphine versus dihydrocodeine for opiate detoxification in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundMany 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.MethodsOpen 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.ResultsOnly 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).ConclusionInformative 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.

Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundEstimates show that as many as one in 10 patients are harmed while receiving hospital care. Previous strategies to improve safety have focused on developing incident reporting systems and changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with little involvement of patients. The need to engage with patients about the quality and safety of their care has never been more evident with recent high profile reviews of poor hospital care all emphasising the need to develop and support better systems for capturing and responding to the patient perspective on their care. Over the past 3 years, our research team have developed, tested and refined the PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention, which gains patient feedback about quality and safety on hospital wards.Methods/designA multi-centre, cluster, wait list design, randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. The aim is to assess the efficacy of the PRASE intervention, in achieving patient safety improvements over a 12-month period.The trial will take place across 32 hospital wards in three NHS Hospital Trusts in the North of England. The PRASE intervention comprises two tools: (1) a 44-item questionnaire which asks patients about safety concerns and issues; and (2) a proforma for patients to report (a) any specific patient safety incidents they have been involved in or witnessed and (b) any positive experiences. These two tools then provide data which are fed back to wards in a structured feedback report. Using this report, ward staff are asked to hold action planning meetings (APMs) in order to action plan, then implement their plans in line with the issues raised by patients in order to improve patient safety and the patient experience.The trial will be subjected to a rigorous qualitative process evaluation which will enable interpretation of the trial results. Methods: fieldworker diaries, ethnographic observation of APMs, structured interviews with APM lead and collection of key data about intervention wards. Intervention fidelity will be assessed primarily by adherence to the intervention via scoring based on an adapted framework.DiscussionThis study will be one of the largest patient safety trials ever conducted, involving 32 hospital wards. The results will further understanding about how patient feedback on the safety of care can be used to improve safety at a ward level. Incorporating the ‘patient voice’ is critical if patient feedback is to be situated as an integral part of patient safety improvements.Trial registrationISRCTN07689702, 16 Aug 2013