Search

Background and Aims: Long‐acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) is a new treatment for opioid use disorder that is generating positive outcomes. Negative effects are typically mild and transient, but can occasionally be serious, resulting in treatment discontinuation/non‐adherence. This paper aims to analyse patients' accounts of how they felt during the first 72 h after initiating LAIB. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted (June 2021–March 2022) with 26 people (18 males and 8 females) who had started LAIB within the previous 72 h. Participants were recruited from treatment services in England and Wales and were interviewed by telephone using a topic guide. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed and coded. The concepts of embodiment and embodied cognition framed the analyses. Data on participants' substance use, initiation onto LAIB and feelings were tabulated. Next, participants' accounts of how they felt were analysed following the stages of Iterative Categorization. Results: Participants reported complex combinations of changing negative and positive feelings. Bodily experiences included withdrawal symptoms, poor sleep, injection‐site pain/soreness, lethargy and heightened senses inducing nausea ('distressed bodies'), but also enhanced somatic wellbeing, improved sleep, better skin, increased appetite, reduced constipation and heightened senses inducing pleasure ('returning body functions'). Cognitive responses included anxiety, uncertainties and low mood/depression ('the mind in crisis') and improved mood, greater positivity and reduced craving ('feeling psychologically better'). Whereas most negative effects reported are widely recognized, the early benefits of treatment described are less well‐documented and may be an overlooked distinctive feature of LAIB. Conclusions: During the first 72 h after initiating long‐acting injectable buprenorphine, new patients report experiencing a range of interconnected positive and negative short‐term effects. Providing new patients with information about the range and nature of these effects can prepare them for what to expect and help them manage feelings and reduce anxiety. In turn, this may increase medication adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Excessive use of antipsychotic medication by older people is an international concern, but there is limited comparative information on their use in different residential settings. This paper describes and compares antipsychotic prescribing to older people in care homes and the community in England and Wales. Method: Analysis of a primary care database (THIN) with 403 259 community and 10 387 care home residents aged 65–104 years in 2008–9. Results: 3677 (0.9%) patients in the community and 2173 (20.9%) in care homes (20.5% in residential homes, 21.7% in nursing homes) received an antipsychotic medication prescription in the last 90 days. Most patients had received prescriptions for more than three months and 60% of prescriptions were for atypical antipsychotics. In patients without severe mental illness, 2367 (0.6%) patients in the community and 1765 (18.2%) in care homes received antipsychotic medication; such prescribing was common for patients with recorded dementia (30.2% in care home, 10.1% in the community). In care homes, younger age and living in the North of England predicted prescribing, but care home type did not. In the community, female gender, increasing age, living in a deprived area and the North predicted prescribing. Conclusions: Despite safety concerns, antipsychotic prescribing is markedly higher in care homes than in the community, and strongly associated with dementia in both settings. In England and Wales, we estimate that 54 000 older care home patients and 50 000 community patients receive antipsychotic medication without a diagnosis of severe mental illness with important implications for health and social services. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We have taken advantage of a natural experiment to measure the impact of the phased abolition of prescription co-payments in Wales. We investigated 3 study periods covering the phased abolition: from £6 to £4, £4 to £3, and £3 to £0. A difference-in-difference modelling was adopted and applied to monthly UK general practice level dispensing data on 14 selected medicines which had the highest percentage of items dispensed subject to a co-payment prior to abolition. Dispensing from a comparator region (North East of England) with similar health and socio-economic characteristics to Wales, and where prescription co-payments continued during the study periods, was used to isolate any non-price effects on dispensing in Wales. Results show a small increase in dispensing of 14 selected medicines versus the comparator. Compared with NE England, monthly average Welsh dispensing was increased by 11.93 items (7.67%; 95% CI [7.2%, 8.1%]), 6.37 items (3.38%; 95% CI [2.9%, 3.7%]) and 9.18 items (4.54%; 95% CI [4.2%, 4.9%]) per practice per 1,000 population during the periods when co-payment was reduced. Price elasticities of the selected medicines utilisation were -0.23, -0.13, and -0.04 in 3 analyses, suggesting the abolition of co-payment had small effect on Welsh dispensing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess the quality of care provided to women undergoing induced abortion. Methods: The design was a single round audit questionnaire aimed at the providers of abortion services throughout England and Wales (NHS hospitals, clinics under NHS, agency agreements and private units. The levels of care were assessed against agreed audit criteria. Results: Responses were received from 240 (74%) of the 324 units providing abortion care in England and Wales. These units undertook 80% of the 176 000 termination procedures. Generally standards of care were appropriate, but there were clear areas for improvement including choice of method, infection screening, and delays in referral. A number of unnecessary investigations were still evident, including cross-matching, while lower doses and alternative drug regimens might reduce costs. Only half of the units audited procedures and complications. Conclusions: This audit was carried out prior to the publication of the RCOG evidence-based guideline and a further round of audit to assess the impact of the guideline should now be considered. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]