Vape Club: Exploring Non-Profit Regulatory Models for the Supply of Vaporised Nicotine Products.

Vaporised nicotine products (VNPs) that are not approved as therapeutic goods are banned in some countries, including Australia, Singapore, and Thailand. We reviewed two non-profit regulatory options, private clubs and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration Special Access Scheme (SAS) that have been applied to other controlled substances (such as cannabis) as a potential model for regulating VNPs as an alternative to prohibition. The legal status of private cannabis clubs varies between the United States, Canada, Belgium, Spain, and Uruguay. Legal frameworks exist for cannabis clubs in some countries, but most operate in a legal grey area. Kava social clubs existed in the Northern Territory, Australia, until the federal government banned importation of kava. Access to medical cannabis in Australia is allowed as an unapproved therapeutic good via the SAS. In Australia, the SAS Category C appears to be the most feasible option to widen access to VNPs, but it may have limited acceptability to vapers and smokers. The private club model would require new legislation but could be potentially more acceptable if clubs were permitted to operate outside a medical framework. Consumer and regulator support for these models is currently unknown. Without similar restrictions applied to smoked tobacco products, these models may have only a limited impact on smoking prevalence. Further research could explore whether these models could be options for regulating smoked tobacco products.

Do consumers who identify as Muslim experience culturally safe care (CSC) in the Emergency Department (ED)? A scoping review.

Lack of awareness about cultural and religious values and beliefs of patients presenting to Emergency Departments (ED) can compromise patient care and safety. Muslim Australians represent the fastest growing religious demographic group, with over a 77% growth in the last decade. The changing face of the Australian population requires that Australian health care carefully consider the dominant Western cultural paradigm currently influencing health care delivery. This predominance is particularly critical in the ED, as it is a common gateway into health care services. This scoping review explores the evidence of key components and impacts of culturally safe care (CSC) in the ED for staff and care consumers who identify as Muslim. A systematic search using electronic (five databases) and heading searching methods for primary research was undertaken; followed by a rigorous screening and quality appraisal process. Included articles were assessed for similarities and differences, and the subsequent content was grouped, synthesized and tested for clinical salience using the six stages of the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The Mixed Method Assessment Tool was used to appraise the quality of included literature. Three studies were included in the analysis. Religious beliefs and practices are common among the individuals who identify as Muslim. Such beliefs and practices could influence patients' understanding of their conditions, their acceptance of care delivery, their processes of decision-making, and their commitment to treatment regimens and coping strategies. These ideals could also impact on a patient's care seeking behaviors and on family and community acceptance of care delivery. There is a serious lack of evidence around the delivery of culturally safe care in the ED locally and internationally. While many EDs may have procedure documents or staff care guidelines, it is unclear as to how these guides were derived, as there is minimal published evidence exploring any issues around provision of CSC to Muslim ED care consumers.