Search results

After discovering that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, in their 38 years of public service, had not sought, nor been provided, independent legal advice regarding the breadth and scope of their statutory remit under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (HM Government, 1971), Casey Hardison wrote the following letter to the Council chair addressing this failure.

The United Kingdom Ministry of Justice recently highlighted the extent of buprenorphine (Subutex) misuse in English andWelsh prisons, naming it the third most misused drug overall. Yet little is known regarding how illicit buprenorphine is obtained in prison and what influences prisoners to use it. Qualitative research was used to explore prison drug using practices. Thirty men who were former prisoners with a history of injecting drug use were interviewed in depth about their illicit prison drug use, including buprenorphine. Interviews were conducted over 18 months, from August 2006 to January 2008 and were analysed using Framework. The misuse of Subutex by snorting emerged as a significant theme. Accounts suggested that the diversion of prison prescribed Subutex was widespread and prisoners used various tactics to obtain the medication. Various complex and interlinked reasons were given to explain why Subutex was snorted in prison. The main motivation for snorting was to experience a prolonged euphoric opiate effect, believed to help to combat the boredom of being in prison. The price of illicit Subutex in prison was linked to its availability, but it was generally cheaper than heroin, thus contributing to its use. Participants’narratives identified the belief that snorting Subutex in prison was not risk free, but risks were lower than continuing to use other drugs, particularly injecting illicit opiates. The implications of prison Subutex misuse for prisoners, prison medical services, commissioners, and prescribing policy and practice are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the health problems and treatment needs of drug‐misusing offenders and to draw out the implications of the findings for health education and prevention.

This analysis is based on data collected as part of the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW‐ADAM) programme. The survey was based on interviews and urine sample collection with over 3,000 arrestees.

The research found that young arrestees experienced a wide range of drug‐related and general health problems. The implications of this are discussed in the context of programmes implemented as part of the government's drug strategy.

The NEW‐ADAM surveys provide an original source of information on the drug and general health needs of young people at the first point of entry in the criminal justice system.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the diagnosis of both carers’ mental health problems and substance misuse increase the likelihood of recurrent child maltreatment over and above the individual effects of these factors.

Retrospective secondary data analysis of 29,455 children where child maltreatment was confirmed in the Victorian child protection system between 2001 and 2005. Recorded mental health, alcohol misuse and other drug misuse variables were entered into multivariate logistic regression models predicting repeated child maltreatment. Interactions and a range of other child, carer and socio-economic factors were included in these models.

Carer alcohol misuse, other drug misuse and mental ill health all independently predicted recurrent child maltreatment. The presence of both other drug misuse and mental ill health increased the likelihood that recurrent child abuse was recorded over the likelihood that mental health alone predicted recurrent child maltreatment, and while alcohol misuse had an effect when there was no mental health condition recorded it did not have an additional effect when there was evidence of mental health problems.

Children in families where there is both mental health problems and other drug use problems are at greater risk of repeated maltreatment than where there is evidence of mental health problems or other drug use alone. Where there was evidence of carer mental health problems, alcohol misuse did not add to this likelihood. However, the effect of mental health and other drug use was similar in size to the effect of alcohol misuse alone.

These findings add to understandings of the effects of co-occurring mental health problems and substance misuse on recurrent child maltreatment and differentiate between cases that involve alcohol and other drug misuse.

This paper considers parents who misuse substances. The potential impacts of their substance misuse on their ability to parent effectively and safely (parenting capacity) are explored, as are some of the barriers many parents face when attempting to seek treatment for problematic substance misuse. The terms ‘use’ and ‘misuse’ are used interchangeably in this paper and ‘substances’ refers to alcohol, illicit drugs and overuse of prescribed medicines. It is important to make the distinction between parents whose use of substances does not constitute dependency and might be best described as ‘recreational or hazardous’. Such individuals might not seek treatment and estimates of prevalence rates of use among this cohort are difficult as they remain hidden from services. Parents who might already be in treatment services or who might be seeking treatment might be described as ‘problematic or dependent’ although presentation at services is neither necessary nor sufficient to assume that the individual's misuse of substances is problematic or indicative of a dependency. The use of substances is associated with numerous harms to the individual: psychologically, socially, interpersonally and physically, and is a risk factor towards negative parenting practices. The use of substances in itself is not an indication of neglectful or harmful parenting, as many parents who use substances have adequate parenting skills, however, it is more frequently associated as a risk rather than a protective factor when considering potential harms. Most of the research refers to mothers although we are aware that some fathers may have sole parenting responsibility for their children. Parents, in particular mothers, face many barriers when trying to access substance misuse treatment services. When they are in treatment, services often lack the skills and experiences to be able to balance managing child protection issues and engaging the parent in treatment. A full review of the issues associated with parenting and substance misuse is beyond the scope of this paper and the reader is referred to Fowler (2003), Cleaver et al (1999), Velleman and Templeton (2007) and Day and George (2005) and the British Psychological Society's Child Protection Portfolio (2007) for further discussion.

This paper offers readers a review of the literature on alcohol and illicit drug misuse in people with learning disabilities, focusing on six key areas. First, clarity is provided on the definition of ‘misuse’. Second, prevalence rates are examined along with the methodological difficulties involved in such studies, the authors arguing that prevalence rates are higher than current estimates. Third, the authors explore the relationship between the intra‐ and inter‐personal risk factors. Fourth, the nature of the substance misuse is explored, with a focus on offending behaviour. Fifth, a range of treatment modalities are described with a series of recommendations for more robust evidence‐based interventions. Last, the authors explore the gaps in policy that lead to a dearth in service provision as well the barriers which people with learning disabilities face on entering treatment services. The paper cites four innovative projects that address this population's needs in England, and illustrates how Northern Ireland has positioned the needs of this hidden population within the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Northern Ireland).

The paper covers:• nature of the drug problem ‐ drug dependence, prevalence of misuse, distribution of problematic drug‐users (PDUs) across NOMS and how drug‐related offending manifests itself• drug strategy in prisons ‐ demand reduction, supply reduction and establishing through‐care linkages, clinical services, counselling, assessment, referral, advice and through‐care services (CARATs), drug rehabilitation programmes, drug testing programmes, supply reduction initiatives, DIP linkages and wider resettlement agenda• assessing need and planning for the future ‐ needs analysis, development of the collaborative drug treatment vision, initiatives planned or under way to improve quality and amount of treatment available, and mainstreaming/integration of services to reduce re‐offending and make public environment safer.

Reviews the response of Government and drug agencies to the problem of volatile substance abuse (VSA). Describes how VSA has, in the past, been treated differently to abuse of other drugs, both legal and illegal, but that most agencies now believe it should be dealt with alongside other drugs. Reviews the main findings of a report on volatile substances from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the Government’s response to it. Describes the measure put in place in the UK to help control the supply of sniffable substances, and the need for education campaigns for parents and young people. Concludes there are no grounds for optimism, as the latest figures on deaths due to VSA show a rise. Gives recommendations for professionals who wish to seek further help for those involved with VSA.

As the use of drugs and alcohol by clients accessing mental health services becomes increasingly common, members of staff working within psychiatric inpatient areas often encounter drug and alcohol misuse among their client group. The safe and effective management of this issue has become a priority for many inpatient services. This paper outlines a policy for the management of substance misuse on psychiatric inpatient wards developed by Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust. The fundamental principles underpinning the policy are highlighted, and the key sections of the policy are described. There is a detailed description of how the policy has been applied in practice by members of staff working on inpatient wards, with clinical examples being presented.