Search

To keep pace with changing technology and to provide better treatment to the public, U.S. poison control centers have increasingly implemented new ways of communicating with healthcare providers and with patients, including electronic transfer of patient information. Innovation in communication and information sharing raises concerns over patient privacy and compliance with applicable laws. This narrative review analyzes both typical activities and emerging innovations of PCCs in relation to U.S. law and regulation regarding privacy, specifically the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. PCCs that are "covered entities" under HIPAA may exchange patient health information with other providers by telephone for purposes of treatment, and certainly during the emergency management of poisonings. SAMHSA regulations, however, limit information that can be shared outside of emergencies without patient consent. The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices which may in some circumstances involve privacy violations. Text message exchanges between PCCs and patients present particularly difficult privacy challenges under these laws.

Background: There have been recent increases in use of new psychoactive substances (NPS) associated with acute health harms including hospital presentations due to toxicity and increasing numbers of deaths. In response, the UK Government enacted generic legislation on 26th May 2016 (the Psychoactive Substances Act) making it an offence to produce, possess with intent to supply, supply, import or export, or possess within a custodial setting a psychoactive substance. We studied the impact of this Act on monthly frequency of enquiries made by health professionals to the UK National Poisons Information Service (NPIS) about NPS. We also studied five commonly used 'conventional' drugs of misuse that had been controlled prior to January 2009., Method: Anonymised clinical enquiries to the NPIS and accesses to the poisons information database TOXBASE were reviewed retrospectively from January 2009 to December 2018 to ascertain the trends in reported toxicity for NPS, cocaine, heroin, cannabis, amphetamines and MDMA. Data were analysed using interrupted time series analysis with the date of the PSA used as an independent predictor., Results: Over the period of study there were 3,866 NPIS telephone enquiries and 79,271 TOXBASE user accesses made by UK health professionals concerning NPS. There were increases in monthly TOXBASE accesses (t = 7.408, P < 0.0001) and telephone enquiries (t = 4.74, P < 0.001) over the pre-specified period January 2009 to May 2016. Comparing the period after the PSA with that before, there were significant reductions in TOXBASE accesses (t = -3.327, P < 0.001) and telephone enquiries (t = -6.97, P < 0.001), although reductions started before May 2016. There were no significant changes for the five conventional drugs. There were significant reductions in telephone enquiries (t = -3.418, P < 0.001) and non-significant reductions in TOXBASE accesses (t = -1.713, P = 0.089) for NPS between June 2016 and December 2018. Increases in telephone enquiries for cocaine and reductions TOXBASE accesses for MDMA were also observed over that period., Conclusions: There have been significant recent reductions in NPIS enquiry activity relating to NPS; although these began before enactment of the PSA in May 2016., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: States in the US are controlling opioid prescribing to combat the opioid epidemic. Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) were widely adopted, whereas less attention was given to pain clinic laws. This study examined the associations of mandatory use of PDMPs and pain clinic laws with prescription opioid exposures., Methods: State-level quarterly prescription opioid exposures reported to the National Poison Data System during 2010-2017 were analyzed. The primary outcome was age-adjusted rates of prescription opioid exposures per 1,000,000 population. The primary policy variables included the implementation of mandatory use of PDMPs alone, the implementation of pain clinic laws alone, and the implementation of both mandatory use of PDMPs and pain clinic laws. Linear regressions were used to examine the associations, controlling for other opioid policies, marijuana policies, socioeconomic factors, state fixed effects, time fixed effects, and state-specific time trends., Results: Requiring mandatory use of PDMPs alone was not associated with significant changes in prescription opioid exposures. The implementation of pain clinic laws with or without concurrent mandatory use of PDMPs was associated with 5 fewer prescription opioid exposures per 1,000,000 population or a 9 % reduction compared to the pre-policy period (p < 0.01). Further analysis revealed that the reduction associated with pain clinic laws was pronounced in exposures reported by healthcare facilities., Conclusions: This multi-state study provided new evidence that the implementation of pain clinic laws was associated with a significant reduction in prescription opioid exposures. Pain clinic laws may deserve further evaluation and consideration., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Current prevalence estimates of synthetic cathinone ("bath salt") use may be underestimates given that traditional metrics (e.g., surveys, urinalysis) often fail to capture the emergent issue of synthetic cathinone adulteration of more common illegal drugs, such as ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine)., Objectives: This review examines the evolution of synthetic cathinones and prevalence of use over the past decade in the United States. We also review methods of self-report and biological testing of these compounds as well as adverse outcomes associated with adulterated drug use., Results: Synthetic cathinone use emerged in the United States by 2009 with use associated with tens of thousands of poisonings. Reported poisonings and self-reported use have substantially decreased over the past five years. However, our review suggests that current estimates of use are underestimates due to underreporting stemming primarily from unknown or unintentional use of adulterated formulations of relatively popular illegal drugs, such as ecstasy., Conclusions: While intentional synthetic cathinone use has decreased in recent years, evidence suggests that prevalence of use is underestimated. Testing of drugs and/or biological specimens can improve the accuracy of synthetic cathinone use estimates. Furthermore, we advocate that researchers and clinicians should become better aware that exposure to these potent compounds (e.g., as adulterants) often occurs unknowingly or unintentionally. To improve our understanding of synthetic cathinone adulteration, research utilizing a combinatorial approach (survey and biological testing) will help more accurately estimate the prevalence and impact of this public health issue.

Introduction: In the past eight years, the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists (EAPCCT) has been intensively involved in a European Commission led process to develop EU legislation on the information of hazardous products that companies have to notify to EU Poisons Centres (or equivalent "appointed bodies"). As a result of this process, the Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 2017/542, amending the CLP Regulation by adding an Annex on harmonised product submission requirements. Harmonised mixture information requirements: Detailed and consistent information on the composition of the hazardous product will become available to EU Poisons Centres (PC). The information will be submitted by companies to PCs (or equivalent "appointed bodies") using a web-based software application or in-house software. Two new important features are introduced. Firstly, to be able to rapidly identify the product formula, a Unique Formula Identifier (UFI) on the product label links to the submitted information. Secondly, for better comparability of reports on poisonings between EU member states, a harmonised Product Categorisation System will specify the intended use of a product. Rapid product identification and availability of detailed composition information will lead to timely and adequate medical intervention. This may lead to considerable reduction in healthcare costs. Additionally, for companies trading across the EU, costs of submission of this information will be reduced significantly. Next steps: From 2017, an implementation period has started, consisting of a three-year period for stakeholders to implement the new requirements, followed by a gradual applicability for consumer products (2020), professional products (2021) and industrial use-only products (2024). Technical tools to generate the electronic format and the UFI together with guidance documents are expected to be made available by the end of 2017 by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Guidance on interpretation of legal text and ECHA helpdesk support are planned to be ready at the end of 2018.

Novel classes of synthetic drugs, including synthetic cathinones ("bath salts") and synthetic cannabinoids ("spice" or "K2"), have recently emerged as popular drugs of abuse. Salvia divinorum, a naturally occurring herb, has gained popularity in the last decade as a hallucinogenic as well. The legal status of these substances has been undergoing rapid changes and has been confusing to lawmakers and medical practitioners alike. We present an up-to-date information about the legality of these substances. We also discuss the historical background, chemical composition, patterns of abuse, clinical presentations, laboratory analysis, and management strategies for these drugs, with an emphasis on synthetic cathinones.

Introduction: In the European Union (EU), notification of product information by industry to poisons centres and/or competent authorities is a legal obligation for mixtures classified as hazardous. However, EU legislation does not specify the precise information needed for this product notification. As a consequence, varying requirements have been developed in different EU Member States. The European Commission (EC) carried out an assessment of whether harmonisation of product notification can be achieved. This manuscript provides an overview of the most important (discussion) points to reach harmonisation., Composition and Concentration of Ingredients: Discussions have focused mainly on whether non-classified ingredients should be notified only above a concentration threshold and on the use of defined, narrow concentration ranges instead of exact concentrations for hazardous ingredients., Electronic Data Exchange Format: All stakeholders agree to the development of an electronic data exchange format for product notification and identify the eXtensible Markup Language (XML) as the most appropriate format., European Product Database: Instead of multiple notifications to national databases, the EC will analyse the benefits, feasibility and costs of a European product database to provide a centralised portal for companies to upload their product information. Poisons centres and competent authorities need to have access to this information., Unique Product Identifier: A Unique Product Identifier (UPI) on the product label can unambiguously identify the product and its formula and links it to the corresponding notified product information. A procedure for the creation of a UPI by companies has already been proposed., Product Category System: There is broad support for the development of a hierarchical product category system to facilitate statistical analyses and comparability of poisoning incidents in EU Member States., Outlook: Following a 3-year assessment period, the EC concluded that harmonisation of product notification is an achievable goal. In order to draft an Annex to the CLP Regulation concerning this topic, a new working group with representatives of EU Member States, European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists (EAPCCT) and other stakeholders will attempt to find consensus on harmonisation of product notification.

Introduction: Legal liability is an increasing concern in many areas of medicine, although the extent to which this alters the practice of medicine is unclear. To date the risk for litigation against medical toxicologists serving in the role of poison control center (PCC) consultants has not been assessed., Methods: A survey questionnaire was mailed to medical toxicologists in the United States to assess their litigation history with regard specifically to their role as PCC consultants. In addition, state laws were examined for statutes that provide protective language with regard to medical toxicologists working as PCC consults., Results: This survey revealed that most medical toxicologists have served or currently serve as PCC consultants. Most had some degree of concern over legal liability, and several had been sued as a result of PCC consultations. Several states have specific statutes that limit the legal liability of PCCs and their employees, including medical directors and consulting medical toxicologists., Discussion: Based on the survey results, legal action against toxicologists serving as PCC consultants appears to be an uncommon occurrence. Lawsuits are usually based upon nonfeasance and have typically been settled or dropped before trial., Conclusions: Legal liability is a concern for PCC consultants. However, legal action against consultants appears to be rare, and respondents to the survey indicated that it did not affect their advice or willingness to serve as PC consultants. A limited number of states have enacted laws that provide protection for medical toxicologists serving as PCC consultants.

Federal funding of poison centers (PCs) in the United States was established in 2000 through the Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act. Unfortunately, the problems with financial stability of PCs that this legislation was intended to improve persist because of continued reliance on fragile local funding sources. In the past few months budget cuts have had an impact on PC activity and threaten the continued existence of a nationwide network of PCs in the United States. This commentary discusses the problems faced by PCs in this changing environment and illustrates the many competing tasks that the PC network performs for the U.S. population. PCs face continuing challenges in coming months and a unified approach at a national level may provide the best opportunity for a solution to this crisis.

Poisons centres throughout Italy and Europe vary considerably in terms of their institutions and organisation. The European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists (EAPCCT) has laid down the activities that a poisons centre must carry out, specifying minimum and maximum standards required. These directions allow an evaluation of the service provided. In 2002 Milan Poisons Centre began a project aiming to introduce concepts and methodology proper of the quality systems within poisons centres' institutional activity. Concluded, the project resulted in the centre's certification and the documentation of its procedures: this may now contribute to help define the status and activity of poisons centres in Italy.

To determine the extent of and rationale for the use of telephone recording devices by poison centers, a survey was distributed to 93 poison centers in the US during September 1991. Of the 62 respondents, 23 (37%) utilized and 39 did not utilize a telephone recording device. Telephone recording devices were primarily installed to address liability concerns followed by use for quality assurance, staff evaluation and training. The most frequent reason for not using a telephone recording device was the high cost and lack of funds (19) followed by considering it an unnecessary practice (8) and liability concerns (7). Poison centers certified by the AAPCC were more likely to record telephone conversations (p < 0.05) and accounted for 70% of centers with a recording device. A telephone recording device is employed by 1/3 of poison centers primarily to address liability concerns.

Statutory compilations of each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia were searched for laws pertaining to poison control activities, and existing statutes were compared. Poison control statutes exist in 13 states and vary among these states. Provisions of the statutes include statewide poison control center programs, enumerated functions, state funding, health department coordination, advisory committees, university affiliation, joint drug information centers, 24-hour service, toll-free telephone numbers, community education activities, and case-reporting systems. In 1957, a Connecticut law authorized establishment of a poison information center; this was the first state statute. Between 1971 and 1977, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Indiana established statutes. In 1978, the American Association for Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) published criteria for regional poison control centers; after this, states including Michigan, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Minnesota, and New Jersey adopted more comprehensive laws. Since publication of the AAPCC criteria, there has been a trend toward regional and more comprehensive poison control center services both in states with poison control statutes and in those without pertinent statutes.

Workers Right To Know (WRTK) legislation has been enacted in several states. It is landmark advocacy legislation for employees and communities who may be exposed to hazardous chemicals, but it is also a complex and costly problem for business, industry, and nonprofit organizations. The Hazardous Substance Center (HSC), a division of the Pittsburgh Poison Center, was created to develop and implement programs to enable the business community to comply with the requirements of WRTK legislation. Specifically, the HSC provides the client with a 24-hour toxicology resource which objectively assists employees in the interpretation of the health-related effects information on material safety data sheets (MSDS) and assists them and medical professionals in the management of acute and chronic exposures. A variety of online databases and reference materials are utilized to respond to these inquiries. Each case is documented using the AAPCC Report Form. Data is analyzed to identify trends which can be used to assist the client in complying with the educational component. The HSC also provides a labeling program to the client to identify and classify hazardous substances. The service is provided for an annual contractual fee and creates an additional source of poison center revenue.