Positive reinforcement targeting abstinence in substance misuse (PRAISe): Study protocol for a Cluster RCT & process evaluation of contingency management.

There are approximately 256,000 heroin and other opiate users in England of whom 155,000 are in treatment for heroin (or opiate) addiction. The majority of people in treatment receive opiate substitution treatment (OST) (methadone and buprenorphine). However, OST suffers from high attrition and persistent heroin use even whilst in treatment. Contingency management (CM) is a psychological intervention based on the principles of operant conditioning. It is delivered as an adjunct to existing evidence based treatments to amplify patient benefit and involves the systematic application of positive reinforcement (financial or material incentives) to promote behaviours consistent with treatment goals. With an international evidence base for CM, NICE recommended that CM be implemented in UK drug treatment settings alongside OST to target attendance and the reduction of illicit drug use. While there was a growing evidence base for CM, there had been no examination of its delivery in UK NHS addiction services. The PRAISe trial evaluates the feasibility, acceptability, clinical and cost effectiveness of CM in UK addiction services. It is a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness trial of CM (praise and financial incentives) targeted at either abstinence from opiates or attendance at treatment sessions versus no CM among individuals receiving OST. The trial includes an economic evaluation which explores the relative costs and cost effectiveness of the two CM intervention strategies compared to TAU and an embedded process evaluation to identify contextual factors and causal mechanisms associated with variations in outcome. This study will inform UK drug treatment policy and practice. Trial registration ISRCTN 01591254.

Induction of patients with moderately severe methadone dependence onto buprenorphine.

Current clinical practice allows patients with low levels of physiological dependence on opioids (equivalent to methadone doses of 30 mg/d or less) to be transferred to buprenorphine. This study investigated the response of opioid-dependent patients receiving doses of methadone between 30-70 mg/d when transferred to buprenorphine at doses between 12-16 mg/d. Twenty-three patients receiving inpatient opioid detoxification agreed to take part in a trial of facilitated transfer to buprenorphine. Following the last morning dose of methadone, buprenorphine was substituted in doses increasing from 4 mg to a maximum of 16 mg, with adjunctive lofexidine (maximum of 2.4 mg/d). All except two patients successfully completed transfer to buprenorphine. To investigate the effect of initial methadone dose, the group was split into intermediate dose (ID; 30 - 49 mg/d; n = 10) and high dose (HD; 50-70 mg/d; n = 11) groups. Average stabilisation dose of buprenorphine for the sample who completed transfer was 14.0 mg/d (SD 2.3) and average daily lofexidine dose during transfer was 0.57 mg (SD 0.39). The HD group used significantly more lofexidine to complete transfer compared to the ID group. Increased opioid withdrawal symptoms, of mild severity as measured by the Short Opiate Withdrawal Scale (SOWS), were found in the HD group compared with the ID group during the first and last day of buprenorphine stabilisation. However, average SOWS scores for the whole of the period of transfer were not significantly different from those during the period of stabilisation on buprenorphine in either the ID or HD groups. This study suggests that transfer to buprenorphine is relatively uncomplicated from daily methadone doses of 30-70 mg in an inpatient setting and may be facilitated by use of lofexidine. This procedure may allow a larger proportion of opioid-dependent patients access to buprenorphine treatment.

Safety and effectiveness of nurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care: randomised controlled trial. The South Wiltshire Out of Hours Project (SWOOP) Group.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of nurse telephone consultation in out of hours primary care by investigating adverse events and the management of calls. DESIGN: Block randomised controlled trial over a year of 156 matched pairs of days and weekends in 26 blocks. One of each matched pair was randomised to receive the intervention. SETTING: One 55 member general practice cooperative serving 97 000 registered patients in Wiltshire. SUBJECTS: All patients contacting the out of hours service or about whom contact was made during specified times over the trial year. INTERVENTION: A nurse telephone consultation service integrated within a general practice cooperative. The out of hours period was 615 pm to 1115 pm from Monday to Friday, 1100 am to 1115 pm on Saturday, and 800 am to 1115 pm on Sunday. Experienced and specially trained nurses received, assessed, and managed calls from patients or their carers. Management options included telephone advice; referral to the general practitioner on duty (for telephone advice, an appointment at a primary care centre, or a home visit); referral to the emergency service or advice to attend accident and emergency. Calls were managed with the help of decision support software. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Deaths within seven days of a contact with the out of hours service; emergency hospital admissions within 24 hours and within three days of contact; attendance at accident and emergency within three days of a contact; number and management of calls in each arm of the trial. RESULTS: 14 492 calls were received during the specified times in the trial year (7308 in the control arm and 7184 in the intervention arm) concerning 10 134 patients (10.4% of the registered population). There were no substantial differences in the age and sex of patients in the intervention and control groups, though male patients were underrepresented overall. Reasons for calling the service were consistent with previous studies. Nurses managed 49.8% of calls during intervention periods without referral to a general practitioner. A 69% reduction in telephone advice from a general practitioner, together with a 38% reduction in patient attendance at primary care centres and a 23% reduction in home visits was observed during intervention periods. Statistical equivalence was observed in the number of deaths within seven days, in the number of emergency hospital admissions, and in the number of attendances at accident and emergency departments. Conclusions Nurse telephone consultation produced substantial changes in call management, reducing overall workload of general practitioners by 50% while allowing callers faster access to health information and advice. It was not associated with an increase in the number of adverse events. This model of out of hours primary care is safe and effective.

Future provision of out of hours primary medical care: a survey with two general practitioner research networks.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain general practitioners' views about the future provision of out of hours primary medical care. DESIGN: Self completing postal questionnaire survey. SETTING: Wessex and north east England. SUBJECTS: 116 general practitioners in the Wessex Primary Care Research Network and 83 in the Northern Primary Care Research Network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intention to reduce or opt out of on call; plans for changing out of hours arrangements; the three most important changes needed to out of hours care; willingness to try, and perceived strengths and limitations of, three alternative out of hours care models--primary care emergency centres, telephone triage services, and cooperatives. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 74% (Wessex research network 77% (89/116), northern research network 71% (59/83)). Eighty three per cent of respondents (123/148) were willing to try at least one service model, primary care emergency centres being the most popular option. Key considerations were the potential for a model to reduce time on call and workload, to maintain continuity of care, and to fit the practice context. Sixty one per cent (91/148) hoped to reduce time on call and 25% (37/148) hoped to opt out completely. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners were keen to try alternative arrangements for out of hours care delivery, despite the lack of formal trials. The increased flexibility in funding brought about by the recent agreement between the General Medical Services Committee and the Department of Health is likely to lead to a proliferation of different schemes. Careful monitoring will be necessary, and formal trials of new service models are needed urgently.

Paediatrics: developing family information leaflets.

The authors offer advice on how to prepare information leaflets for the families of children admitted to paediatric units, and describe the successful implementation of such a scheme at the University Hospital, Southampton. The development of family information leaflets comprises an important part of setting quality standards.