Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T17:00:41.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Naloxone Audit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Paster Venan*
Affiliation:
Essex Specialist Treatment and Recovery Services, Colchester, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

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)

Methods

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.

Results

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)

Conclusion

  1. 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. 2. There was evidence of Naloxone being provided to the patients who have not injected heroin

  3. 3. There was accurate documentation on the type of Naloxone being issued (Injectable vs Nasal)

  4. 4. There was sparse documentation on the Naloxone training provision within the electronic system.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

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.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.