Accessing opioid agonist treatment in prison in England and Scotland remains problematic - the views of people with lived experience.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to examine lived experiences of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) during and immediately following release from detention in prisons in England and Scotland. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Surveys were completed by serving prisoners in both countries and by those recently released from prison (England only). The survey findings were discussed in focus groups of people with lived experience. The combined findings from the surveys and focus groups were shared with an expert group of prison OAT providers and people with lived experience with the purpose of making recommendations for more accessible and effective OAT in custodial environments and continuity of OAT on release. FINDINGS: The quality and accessibility of OAT varied considerably between establishments. It was reported to be harder to access OAT in Scottish prisons. It was often hard for people in prison to get the dosage of OAT they felt they needed and it was generally harder to access buprenorphine than methadone in English prisons. Only Scottish people in prison were aware of long-lasting forms of buprenorphine. People in English prisons had mixed experiences of the help available in prison, with no improvement recorded since a 2016 study. People in Scottish prisons were more likely to rate the help available as poor. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The number of people accessed while actually in prison (73) was reduced by the impact of the pandemic, making it more difficult to access people in prison and because some were resistant to participating on the basis that they had already been consulted for a wide variety of research projects focused on the impact of COVID. The Scottish cohort (a total of 19 individuals comprising 14 survey respondents and five focus group members) is clearly too small a number on which to base robust claims about differences in OAT provision between the English and Scottish prison systems.. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The study identifies key barriers to accessing OAT in prisons and suggests key components of more user-friendly approaches. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This study provides an overview of the recent lived experiences of people accessing OAT in prison and on release and offers valuable recommendations on how to make service provision more effective and consistent. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study provides an overview of the recent lived experiences of people accessing OAT in prison and on release in England and Scotland and offers valuable recommendations on how to make service provision more effective and consistent.

OUD Care Service Improvement with Prolonged-release Buprenorphine in Prisons: Cost Estimation Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In prisons in England, integrated treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) is accessible and effective, commonly based on daily supervised consumption of methadone. Treatment limitations (inadequate dosing, nonengagement with care, stigma, diversion and bullying) are noted. Flexible dose, injectable prolonged-release buprenorphine (PRB) which removes the need for daily dispensing and supervision is suggested for prisoner care. This work aimed to predict the difference in costs of current standard of care vs partial introduction of PRB. METHODS: A predictive model of compared costs for the provision of OUD care in the prison setting in England evaluated current standard of care (all receive methadone) with a future situation of 30% of prisoners electing to use a monthly dose of PRB. Evidence describing costs to deliver OUD care for 150 prisoners (pharmacotherapy, direct service, indirect health care, indirect security costs) were collected, including assumptions describing how care would be delivered. Evidence sources include national data sources, scientific literature and from experience in the prison health care setting. RESULTS: For a representative standard prison population requiring OUD care of 150 prisoners in England PRB introduction is associated with a predicted reduction in direct and indirect costs of OUD care. Annual OUD care costs for current standard of care were £0.6M; with 30% PRB costs reduced by £8665, more than 3000 hours of staff time is saved. Sensitivity analyses showed greater adoption of PRB resulted in further cost reduction. CONCLUSION: PRB can address limitations of OUD care in prisons and improve outcomes. Introduction does not increase cost of care in this predictive analysis. PRB may lead the transformation of prisoner OUD care.