General Practitioners' views of home detoxification

Role legitimacy, comfort and confidence providing tobacco, alcohol and other drug care: a cross-sectional study of Australian early-career general practitioners

Australian general practitioners (GPs) see most Australians each year and, as tobacco, alcohol and other drug use (substance use) are common, GPs often see problematic, risky or dependent substance use. This study aimed to explore early-career GPs' role legitimacy, comfort and confidence managing patients with problematic use of tobacco, alcohol, psychoactive pharmaceutical or illicit substances.Using the '5A's framework: Ask, Assess, Advise, Assist and Arrange, we surveyed 251 early-career GPs (GP registrars) on role legitimacy, confidence managing patient substance use, and sources of clinical information, advice and support.There was strong agreement that managing substance use is a GP's role, with high levels of confidence 'Asking' (screening) about tobacco and alcohol use, which decreased across other substance classes. Early-career GPs reported lower levels of confidence 'Assessing' and 'Advising' (brief interventions); and much lower levels of confidence 'Assisting' (treating) and 'Arranging' (follow up and/or referral) for patients with substance issues across all substances, including tobacco. Participants were most likely to seek advice from senior colleagues in their practice.Early-career GPs reported lower than optimal levels of confidence for all substances. Our findings have important implications for educators globally. Education that improves confidence across all 5As for high-prevalence substances (tobacco and alcohol) while focusing on increasing comfort screening and improving understanding of referral pathway options for low-prevalence substances may improve early-career GPs' confidence. This could increase engagement in managing substance use issues potentially leading to better health and wellbeing outcomes for patients.

Process evaluation of an out-patient detoxification service

This paper describes the process evaluation of an out-patient detoxification service (ODS) established by Drug Health Services (DHS) to increase the supervised withdrawal options for substance users in a Sydney metropolitan Area Health Service. The ODS aimed to provide a safe and effective supervised withdrawal to substance users who were at low risk of severe withdrawal, engage those with severe dependence in further treatment and increase the involvement of general practitioners (GPs) in the medical care of ODS clients. During its first 10 months of operation, the ODS received 199 inquiries, assessed 82 individuals and admitted 76 clients for detoxification. Withdrawal treatment proceeded without complications and within the expected time frames. Fifty-four clients completed withdrawal, 10 ceased treatment, 10 remained in treatment without completing withdrawal and two were transferred elsewhere. Clients who injected substances (mainly heroin) daily at admission, compared to others, were less likely to complete withdrawal and more likely to use a range of non-prescribed substances during withdrawal. One-fifth of clients went on to further treatment with DHS, attending at least once. Overall, the ODS met its goals, providing a safe and effective supervised withdrawal to local residents, especially women, young people and those withdrawing from benzodiazepines who had significant substance dependence, impairment and previous alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment. Non-injecting substance users benefited most from the ODS in terms of withdrawal completion and ongoing treatment. The level of GP involvement in the conjoint care of ODS clients remained constant over time. The development and expansion of the ODS are discussed.

The general practitioner pharmacotherapy prescribing workforce: examining sustainability from a systems perspective

As prescribers of opioid pharmacotherapies, general practitioners (GPs) are pivotal to the sustainability of opioid pharmacotherapy treatment services. The goal of this study was to examine the nature and sustainability of the Australian GP prescriber workforce in order to inform future programmes and policy development in this area. Data were collected from four Australian states: South Australia, Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales. Key features of the available data were: a heavy client load carried by a small number of prescribers, a high proportion of trained but inactive prescribers, and a high proportion (one-third to two-thirds) of medical practitioners who undertake training but do not take up prescribing, i.e. a high attrition rate. Available data indicate significant shortfalls in the number of prescribers available in each state to service this patient population. Across all states a relatively small number of prescribers were providing services for the majority of methadone clients. In order to achieve sustainable, high quality prescriber service provision, workforce development strategies are needed which focus on recruitment of new prescribers, and the support and retention of existing and inactive prescribers. Establishment of systematic and detailed data collection systems should also be considered a priority.

Brief interventions: good in theory but weak in practice

A substantial body of research evidence has accumulated in support of the efficacy of brief interventions for a number of alcohol and drug-related problem areas, most notably alcohol and tobacco. This evidence has been used to exhort a range of professional groups such as general practitioners (GPs), and more recently emergency department hospital staff to engage in brief interventions. Internationally, however, these secondary prevention efforts have largely failed. Why have these proven interventions not been embraced by frontline workers? This is a little-asked question as efforts to press-gang unwilling professionals to take up the cudgel continue. This paper examines the characteristics of brief interventions and their principal delivery agents and explores reasons for the failure to move from efficacy to effectiveness. Given the prevention potential that rests with brief intervention, these are crucial questions to address. A key feature of brief intervention delivery also examined is the role of GPs versus the less well-explored option of the practice nurse. It will be proposed that perhaps we have the right vehicle but the wrong driver and that until closer scrutiny is made of this issue efforts in this key prevention area will continue to fail to achieve optimum results.

The general practitioner's role in AOD issues: overcoming individual, professional and systemic barriers

General practitioners (GPs) and increasingly other medical practitioners are well placed to address alcohol and other drug (AOD) problems. Their involvement in this area of care, however, is assessed to be less than optimal. There is, however, a growing body of evidence for the potential efficacy of medical practitioner intervention at the primary care, emergency department and in-patient level. There is also considerably expanded scope to operate from an evidence-based perspective. However, key questions arise regarding what constitutes best practice in the translation of the growing AOD knowledge base into clinical practice behaviours. This paper explores possible contributory factors to the low level of engagement with AOD issues by GPs and examines a wide range of individual, structural and systemic issues that may be amenable to change. Strategies for the dissemination of research findings, changing professional practice behaviour and introducing sustainable structural reforms are also addressed.