Impact of Online Counseling on Drug Use: A Pilot Study

Quality Improvement in Neurocritical Care: a Review of the Current Landscape and Best Practices

Purpose of Review

The field of neurocritical care (NCC) has grown such that there is now a substantial body of literature on quality improvement specific to NCC. This review will discuss the development of this literature over time and highlight current best practices with practical tips for providers.

Recent Findings

There is tremendous variability in patient care models for NCC patients, despite evidence showing that certain structural elements are associated with better outcomes. There now also exist evidence-based recommendations for neurocritical care unit (NCCU) structure and processes, as well as NCC-specific performance measure (PM) sets; however, awareness of these is variable among care providers. The evidence-based literature on NCC structure, staffing, training, standardized order sets and bundles, transitions of care including handoff, prevention of bounce backs, bed flow optimization, and inter-hospital transfers is growing and offers many examples of successful performance improvement initiatives in NCCUs.

Summary

NCC providers care for patients with life-threatening conditions like intracerebral and subarachnoid hemorrhages, ischemic stroke, and traumatic brain injury, which are associated with high morbidity, complexity of treatment, and cost. Quality improvement initiatives have been successful in improving many aspects of NCC patient care, and NCC providers should continue to update and standardize their practices with consideration of this data. More research is needed to continue to identify high-risk and high-cost NCCU structures and processes and strategies to optimize them, validate current NCC PMs, and encourage clinical adoption of those that prove to be associated with improved outcomes.

Best Practices for Conducting Interprofessional Team Rounds to Facilitate Performance of the ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle

OBJECTIVES

Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds, which incorporate the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage Pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, support both the care coordination and regular provider communication necessary for Bundle execution. This article describes evidence-based practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU to improve Bundle performance.

DESIGN

Best practice synthesis.

METHODS

The authors, each extensively involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's ICU Liberation Campaign, reviewed the pertinent literature to identify how ICU interprofessional team rounds can be optimized to increase ICU Liberation adherence.

RESULTS

Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds that foster ICU Liberation Bundle use support both care coordination and regular provider communication within and between teams. Evidence-based best practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU include the optimal structure for ICU interprofessional team rounds; the importance of conducting rounds at patients' bedside; essential participants in rounds; the inclusion of ICU patients and their families in rounds-based discussions; and incorporation of the Bundle into the Electronic Health Record. Interprofessional team rounds in the ICU ideally employ communication strategies to foster inclusive and supportive behaviors consistent with interprofessional collaboration in the ICU. Patient care discussions during interprofessional team rounds benefit from being patient-centered and goal-oriented. Documentation of ICU Liberation Bundle elements in the Electronic Health Record may help facilitate team communication and decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Conducting high-quality interprofessional team rounds in the ICU is a key strategy to support ICU Liberation Bundle use.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This review represents one in a family of three reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 electronic bibliographic databases up to February 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials with 2560 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (7/13 studies, 53%) and community (6/13 studies, 47%) settings. The rating of bias was affected by the lack of clear reporting by authors, and we rated many items as 'unclear'. In two studies (190 participants) collaborative case management in comparison to treatment as usual did not reduce drug use (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 2.12; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), reincarceration at nine months (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.57; 1 study, 77 participants; low-certainty evidence), and number of subsequent arrests at 12 months (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.49; 1 study, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study (36 participants) comparing buprenorphine to placebo showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at end of treatment (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.20) and three months (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35); very low-certainty evidence. No adverse events were reported. One study (38 participants) comparing interpersonal psychotherapy to a psychoeducational intervention did not find reduction in drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; low-certainty evidence). One study (31 participants) comparing acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to a waiting list showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use using the Addiction Severity Index (mean difference (MD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and abstinence from drug use at six months (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43); low-certainty evidence. One study (314 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills to a therapeutic community programme and aftercare showed no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.27), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03); criminal activity (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03), or drug-related crime (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.32). A significant reduction for arrested (not for parole) violations at six months follow-up was significantly in favour of cognitive behavioural skills (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77; very low-certainty evidence). A second study with 115 participants comparing cognitive behavioural skills to an alternative substance abuse treatment showed no significant reduction in reincarceration at 12 months (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.12; low certainty-evidence. One study (44 participants) comparing cognitive behavioural skills and standard therapy versus treatment as usual showed no significant reduction in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) drug score at three months (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09) and six months (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.05), and incarceration at three months (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.68) and six months (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.27); very low-certainty evidence. One study (171 participants) comparing a single computerised intervention versus case management showed no significant reduction in the number of days not using drugs at three months (MD -0.89, 95% CI -4.83 to 3.05; low certainty-evidence). One study (116 participants) comparing dialectic behavioural therapy and case management (DBT-CM) versus a health promotion intervention showed no significant reduction at six months follow-up in positive drug testing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.03), number of people not using marijuana (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59), crack (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14), cocaine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12), heroin (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13), methamphetamine (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20), and self-reported drug use for any drug (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.56); very low-certainty evidence. One study (211 participants) comparing a therapeutic community programme versus work release showed no significant reduction in marijuana use at six months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.65), nor 18 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45), heroin use at six months (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14), nor 18 months (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.24 to 15.37), crack use at six months (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.41), nor 18 months (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.06), cocaine use at six months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50), nor 18 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.35). It also showed no significant reduction in incarceration for drug offences at 18 months (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.42); with overall very low- to low-certainty evidence. One study (511 participants) comparing intensive discharge planning and case management versus prison only showed no significant reduction in use of marijuana (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.16), hard drugs (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43), crack cocaine (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.54), nor positive hair testing for marijuana (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03); it found a significant reduction in arrests (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.87), but no significant reduction in drug charges (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.53) nor incarceration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39); moderate-certainty evidence. One narrative study summary (211 participants) comparing buprenorphine pre- and post-release from prison showed no significant reduction in drug use at 12 months post-release; low certainty-evidence. No adverse effects were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The studies showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons, outcome measures and small samples. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required. On one outcome of arrest (no parole violations), we identified a significant reduction when cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was compared to a therapeutic community programme. But for all other outcomes, none of the interventions were effective. Larger trials are required to increase the precision of confidence about the certainty of evidence.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems

BACKGROUND

This review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.This review addresses the following questions.• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane .

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.Four studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.One study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.Four studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.Two studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.One study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.

Feasibility and Effects of Digital Interventions to Support People in Recovery From Substance Use Disorders: Systematic Review

Background

The development and evaluation of digital interventions aimed at preventing or treating substance use–related problems and disorders is a rapidly growing field. Previous reviews of such interventions reveal a large and complex picture with regard to targeted users, use, and efficacy.

Objective

The objective of this review was to investigate the feasibility and effects of interventions developed specifically for digital platforms. These interventions are focused on supporting people in recovery from substance use disorders by helping them achieve their substance use goals and develop a more satisfying life situation.

Methods

The review is based on a systematic search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases. Of the 1149 identified articles, 722 were excluded as obviously not relevant. Of the remaining articles, 21 were found to be previous reviews, 269 were on interventions aimed at reducing hazardous alcohol or cannabis use, and 94 were on digitized versions of standard treatment methods. The remaining 43 articles were all read in full and systematically scored by both authors.

Results

The 43 articles cover 28 unique interventions, of which 33 have been published after 2013. The interventions are aimed at different target groups (defined by age, substance, or comorbidity). Based on the number of features or modules, the interventions can be categorized as simple or complex. Fourteen of the 18 simple interventions and 9 of the 10 complex interventions have been studied with quantitative controlled methodologies. Thirteen of the 18 simple interventions are integrated in other treatment or support systems, mainly delivered as mobile phone apps, while 6 of the 10 complex interventions are designed as stand-alone interventions, most often delivered on a platform combining desktop/Web and mobile phone technologies. The interventions were generally easy to implement, but in most cases the implementation of the complex interventions was found to be dependent on sustained organizational support. Between 70% and 90% of the participants found the interventions to be useful and easy to use. The rates of sustained use were also generally high, except for simple interventions with an open internet-based recruitment and some information and education modules of the complex interventions. Across all interventions, slightly more than half (55%) of the studies with control groups generated positive findings on 1 or more substance use outcomes, with 57% of the interventions also found to be efficacious in 1 or more studies. In the positive studies, effects were typically in the small to moderate range, with a few studies yielding larger effects. Largely due to the inclusion of stronger control conditions, studies of simple interventions were less likely to produce positive effects.

Conclusions

The digital interventions included in this review are in general feasible but are not consistently effective in helping people in recovery from substance use disorder reduce their substance use or achieving other recovery goals.

Educational Interventions to Improve Handover in Health Care: An Updated Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Effective handovers (handoffs) are vital to patient safety. Medical educators investigated educational interventions to improve handovers in a 2011 systematic review. The number of publications on handover education has increased since then, so authors undertook this updated review.

METHOD

The authors considered studies involving educational interventions to improve handover amongst undergraduate or postgraduate health professionals in acute care settings. In September 2016, two authors independently conducted a standardized search of online databases and completed a data extraction and quality assessment of the articles included. They conducted a content analysis of and extracted key themes from the interventions described.

RESULTS

Eighteen reports met the inclusion criteria. All but two were based in the United States. Interventions most commonly involved single-patient exercises based on simulation and role-play. Many studies mentioned multiprofessional education or practice, but interventions occurred largely in single-professional contexts. Analysis of interventions revealed three major themes: facilitating information management, reducing the potential for errors, and improving confidence. The majority of studies assessed Kirkpatrick's outcomes of satisfaction and knowledge/skill improvement (Levels 1 and 2). The strength of conclusions was generally weak.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increased interest in and publications on handover, the quality of published research remains poor. Inadequate reporting of interventions, especially as they relate to educational theory, pedagogy, curricula, and resource requirements, continues to impede replication. Weaknesses in methodologies, length of follow-up, and scope of outcomes evaluation (Kirkpatrick levels) persist. Future work to address these issues, and to consider the role of multiprofessional and multiple-patient handovers, is vital.

"What constitutes a 'problem'?" Producing 'alcohol problems' through online counselling encounters

Typically, health policy, practice and research views alcohol and other drug (AOD) 'problems' as objective things waiting to be detected, diagnosed and treated. However, this approach to policy development and treatment downplays the role of clinical practices, tools, discourses, and systems in shaping how AOD use is constituted as a 'problem'. For instance, people might present to AOD treatment with multiple psycho-social concerns, but usually only a singular AOD-associated 'problem' is considered serviceable. As the assumed nature of 'the serviceable problem' influences what treatment responses people receive, and how they may come to be enacted as 'addicted' or 'normal' subjects, it is important to subject clinical practices of problem formulation to critical analysis. Given that the reach of AOD treatment has expanded via the online medium, in this article we examine how 'problems' are produced in online alcohol counselling encounters involving people aged 55 and over. Drawing on poststructural approaches to problematisation, we not only trace how and what 'problems' are produced, but also what effects these give rise to. We discuss three approaches to problem formulation: (1) Addiction discourses at work; (2) Moving between concerns and alcohol 'problems'; (3) Making 'problems' complex and multiple. On the basis of this analysis, we argue that online AOD counselling does not just respond to pre-existing 'AOD problems'. Rather, through the social and clinical practices of formulation at work in clinical encounters, online counselling also produces them. Thus, given a different set of circumstances, practices and relations, 'problems' might be defined or emerge differently-perhaps not as 'problems' at all or perhaps as different kinds of concerns. We conclude by highlighting the need for a critical reflexivity in AOD treatment and policy in order to open up possibilities for different ways of engaging with, and responding to, people's needs in their complexity.

Introduction of the identification, situation, background, assessment, recommendations tool to improve the quality of information transfer during medical handover in intensive care

OBJECTIVE

To audit the quality and safety of the current doctor-to-doctor handover of patient information in our Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit. If deficient, to implement a validated handover tool to improve the quality of the handover process.

METHODS

In Cycle 1 we observed the verbal handover and reviewed the written handover information transferred for 50 consecutive patients in St George's Hospital Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit. For each patient's handover, we assessed whether each section of the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations tool was used on a scale of 0-2. Zero if no information in that category was transferred, one if the information was partially transferred and two if all relevant information was transferred. Each patient's handover received a score from 0 to 10 and thus, each cycle a total score of 0-500. Following the implementation of the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations handover tool in our Intensive Care Unit in Cycle 2, we re-observed the handover process for another 50 consecutive patients hence, completing the audit cycle.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between the total scores from Cycle 1 and 2 (263/500 versus 457/500, p < 0.001). The median handover score for Cycle 1 was 5/10 (interquartile range 4-6). The median handover score for Cycle 2 was 9/10 (interquartile range 9-10). Patient handover scores increased significantly between Cycle 1 and 2, U = 13.5, p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of a standardised handover template (Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations tool) has improved the quality and safety of the doctor-to-doctor handover of patient information in our Intensive Care Unit.

Are Non-Pharmacological Interventions Effective in Reducing Drug Use and Criminality? A Systematic and Meta-Analytical Review with an Economic Appraisal of These Interventions

Background: The numbers of incarcerated people suffering from drug dependence has steadily risen since the 1980s and only a small proportion of these receive appropriate treatment. A systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and economic evidence of non-pharmacological interventions for drug using offenders was conducted. Methods: Cochrane Collaboration criteria were used to identify trials across 14 databases between 2004 and 2014. A series of meta-analyses and an economic appraisal were conducted. Results: 43 trials were identified showing to have limited effect in reducing re-arrests RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.89-1.07) and drug use RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.80-1.00) but were found to significantly reduce re-incarceration RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.57-0.85). Therapeutic community programs were found to significantly reduce the number of re-arrests RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.56-0.87). 10 papers contained economic information. One paper presented a cost-benefit analysis and two reported on the cost and cost effectiveness of the intervention. Conclusions: We suggest that therapeutic community interventions have some benefit in reducing subsequent re-arrest. We recommend that economic evaluations should form part of standard trial protocols.

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both, for illicit drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological intervention a component of which is designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity, or both, in drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials with 2647 participants met the inclusion criteria. The interventions included in this review report on agonistic pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) compared to no intervention, other non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Studies could not be combined all together because the comparisons were too different. Only subgroup analysis for type of pharmacological treatment were done. When compared to non-pharmacological, we found low quality evidence that agonist treatments are not effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity, objective results (biological) (two studies, 237 participants (RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.00); subjective (self-report), (three studies, 317 participants (RR 0.61 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); self-report drug use (three studies, 510 participants (SMD: -0.62 (95% CI -0.85 to -0.39). We found low quality of evidence that antagonist treatment was not effective in reducing drug use (one study, 63 participants (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.70) but we found moderate quality of evidence that they significantly reduced criminal activity (two studies, 114 participants, (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.74).Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity showed mixed results. In the comparison of methadone to buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone, no significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (two studies, 370 participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.55), continuous measures of drug use (one study, 81 participants, (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% CI -5.33 to 6.73); or criminal activity (one study, 116 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.88) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similar results were found for comparisons with diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants, (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.51) or naltrexone for dichotomous measures of reincarceration (one study, 44 participants, (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.26), and continuous outcome measure of crime, (MD -0.50, 95% CI -8.04 to 7.04) or self report drug use (MD 4.60, 95% CI -3.54 to 12.74).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to non-pharmacological treatment, agonist treatments did not seem effective in reducing drug use or criminal activity. Antagonist treatments were not effective in reducing drug use but significantly reduced criminal activity. When comparing the drugs to one another we found no significant differences between the drug comparisons (methadone versus buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone) on any of the outcome measures. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one from a family of four reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and 5 Internet resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2009). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent relapse of drug use and criminal activity, or both in drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials with 2058 participants met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the trials was generally difficult to rate due to a lack of clear reporting. On most 'Risk of bias' items, we rated the majority of studies as unclear. Overall, we could not statistically combine the results due to the heterogenous nature of the different study interventions and comparison groups. A narrative summary of the findings identified that the interventions reported limited success with reducing self report drug use, but did have some impact on re-incarceration rates, but not re-arrest. In the single comparisons, we found moderate-quality evidence that therapeutic communities determine a reduction in re-incarceration but reported less success for outcomes of re-arrest, moderate quality of evidence and self report drug use. Three single studies evaluating case management via a mental health drug court (very low quality of evidence), motivational interviewing and cognitive skills (low and very low quality of evidence) and interpersonal psychotherapy (very low quality of evidence) did not report significant reductions in criminal activity and self report drug use respectively. Quality of evidence for these three types of interventions was low to very low. The trials reported some cost information, but it was not sufficient to be able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Two of the five trials showed some promising results for the use of therapeutic communities and aftercare, but only in relation to reducing subsequent re-incarceration. Overall, the studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. More evaluations are required to assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity, or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases up to May 2014 and five additional Website resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse of drug use or criminal activity in female drug-using offenders. We also reported data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials with 1792 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. We rated the majority of studies as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. We divided the studies into different categories for the purpose of meta-analyses: for any psychosocial treatments in comparison to treatment as usual we found low quality evidence that there were no significant differences in arrest rates, (two studies; 489 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52) or drug use (one study; 77 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but we found moderate quality evidence that there was a significant reduction in reincarceration, (three studies; 630 participants; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce self reported drug use (one study; 36 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35). No cost or cost-effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Three of the nine trials show a positive trend towards the use of any psychosocial treatment in comparison to treatment as usual showing an overall significant reduction in subsequent reincarceration, but not arrest rates or drug use. Pharmacological interventions in comparison to a placebo did not significantly reduce drug use and did not measure criminal activity. Four different treatment comparisons showed varying results and were not combined due to differences in the intervention and comparison groups. The studies overall showed a high degree of heterogeneity for types of comparisons and outcome measures assessed, which limited the possibility to pool the data. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the precision of confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.

Interventions for female drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing drug use and criminal activity for offenders. This specific review considers interventions for female drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for female drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases (between 2004 and 21st March 2013) and five additional web resources (between 2004 and November 2011). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse in female drug-using offenders. We also report data on the cost and cost effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 76 trials across the four reviews. Following a process of prescreening, we judged that 11 trials met the inclusion criteria of the specified review; four of the 11 trials are awaiting classification in the review. The remaining seven trials cover 1236 participants. The interventions included in this review report on therapeutic communities (TCs), gender-responsive treatment (GRT), use of case management and cognitive skills, and a pharmacological intervention using buprenorphine. Trial quality and risks of bias varied across each study. The majority of studies were rated as being at 'unclear' risk of bias due to a lack of descriptive information. Overall the interventions showed statistically significant reductions in self-reported drug use, (four studies, 734 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.80) and re-incarceration, (four studies, 745 participants, RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.72). We found a statistically non-significant result for re-arrest (three studies, 803 participants, RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.19). Individual treatment results found that TCs and a GRT programme showed a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration (one study, 509 participants, RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.60) but not for re-arrest, (one study, 314 participants, RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.03) and self-reported drug use (two studies, 825 participants, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.53). Case management and cognitive skills programmes did not significantly reduce re-arrests, (one study, 183 participants RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.41) or self-reported drug use, (one study, 77 participants, RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.20 to 2.12), but did show a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration, (three studies, 236 participants, RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.81). Buprenorphine did not significantly reduce self-reported drug use (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.35), but this result came from a single study with only 36 participants. Due to the small number of studies we were unable to analyse the impact of treatment setting on outcome. No cost and cost effectiveness evidence was reported in the studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The seven trials show some positive results for the use of treatments to reduce self-reported drug use and subsequent re-incarceration. However, the studies overall showed a high degree of statistical variation, requiring a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. Descriptions of treatment modalities are required to identify the important elements for treatment success in drug-using female offenders. More trials are required to increase the confidence with which we can draw conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments for female drug-using offenders.

Interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of an original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 2006 (Perry 2006). The review represents one from a family of four reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers interventions aimed at reducing drug use or criminal activity, or both for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 14 electronic bibliographic databases (searched between 2004 and 21 March 2013) and five internet resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2009). We contacted experts in the field for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials designed to reduce, eliminate or prevent relapse in drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental illness. We also reported data on the cost and cost effectiveness of interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 76 trials across the four reviews. Following a process of pre-screening, we judged eight trials to meet the inclusion criteria for this specific review (three of the five trials are awaiting classification). The five included 1502 participants. The interventions reported on case management via a mental health drugs court, a therapeutic community, and an evaluation of a motivational interviewing technique and cognitive skills in comparison to relaxation training. The methodological quality of the trials was generally difficult to rate due to a lack of clear reporting. On most risk of bias items, we rated the majority of studies as unclear. Overall, the combined interventions did not show a statistically significant reduction in self reported drug use (2 studies, 715 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 1.55). A statistically significantly reduction was shown for re-incarceration (4 studies, 627 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67 and mean difference (MD) 28.72, 95% CI 5.89 to 51.54) but not re-arrest (2 studies, 518 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12). A specific subgroup analysis combining studies using therapeutic community interventions showed a statistically significant reduction in re-incarceration (2 studies, 266 participants; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.54) but not re-arrest (1 study, 428 participants; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.33). Case management via a mental health court and motivational interviewing with cognitive skills did not show a statistically significant reduction in criminal activity (1 study, 235 participants; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22) or self reported drug misuse (1 study, 162 participants; MD -7.42, 95% CI -20.12 to 5.28). Due to the small number of studies, we were unable to analyse the impact of setting on outcome. Some cost information was provided in the trials but not sufficient to be able to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the paucity of evidence for drug misusing offenders with co-occurring mental health problems. Two of the five trials showed some promising results for the use of therapeutic communities and aftercare, but only in relation to reducing subsequent re-incarceration. The studies overall, showed a high degree of statistical variation demonstrating a degree of caution in the interpretation of the magnitude of effect and direction of benefit for treatment outcomes. More evaluations are required to assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders

BACKGROUND

The review represents one in a family of four reviews focusing on a range of different interventions for drug-using offenders. This specific review considers pharmacological interventions aimed at reducing drug use and/or criminal activity for illicit drug-using offenders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders in reducing criminal activity and/or drug use.

SEARCH METHODS

Fourteen electronic bibliographic databases (searched between 2004 and 21 March 2013) and five additional Web resources (searched between 2004 and 11 November 2011) were searched. Experts in the field were contacted for further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any pharmacological interventions for reducing, eliminating or preventing relapse in drug-using offenders were included. Data on the cost and cost-effectiveness of interventions were reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 76 trials across the four reviews were identified. After a process of prescreening had been completed, 17 trials were judged to meet the inclusion criteria for this specific review (six of the 17 trials are awaiting classification for the review). The remaining 11 trials contained a total of 2,678 participants. Nine of the eleven studies used samples with a majority of men. The interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) were compared to non pharmacological treatments (e.g., counselling) and other pharmacological drugs. The methodological trial quality was poorly described, and most studies were rated as 'unclear' by the reviewers. The biggest threats to risk of bias were generated through blinding (performance and detection bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). When combined, the results suggest that pharmacological interventions do significantly reduce subsequent drug use using biological measures, (three studies, 300 participants, RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.97)), self report dichotomous data (three studies, 317 participants, RR 0.42, (95% CI 0.22 to 0.81)) and continuous measures (one study, MD -59.66 (95% CI -120.60 to 1.28)) . In the subgroups analysis for community setting, (two studies, 99 participants: RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.09)) and for secure establishment setting, (one study, 201 participants: RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.10)), the results are no longer statistically significant. Criminal activity was significantly reduced favouring the dichotomous measures of re arrest, (one study, 62 participants, RR 0.60 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.14)), re-incarceration, (three studies, 142 participants, RR 0.33 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.56)) and continuous measures (one study, 51 participants, MD -74.21 (95% CI -133.53 to -14.89)). Findings on the effects of individual pharmacological interventions on drug use and criminal activity show mixed results. Buprenorphine in comparison to a non pharmacological treatment seemed to favour buprenorphine but not significantly with self report drug use, (one study, 36 participants, RR 0.58 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.35)). Methadone and cognitive behavioural skills in comparison to standard psychiatric services, did show a significant reduction for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 253 participants, RR 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.56)) but not for self report continuous data (one study 51 participants) MD -0.52 (95% CI -1.09 to 0.05)), or re incarceration RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.53 to 2.87)). Naltrexone was favoured significantly over routine parole and probation for re incarceration (two studies 114 participants, RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.69)) but no data was available on drug use. Finally, we compared each pharmacological treatment to another. In each case we compared methadone to: buprenorphine, diamorphine and naltrexone. No significant differences were displayed for either treatment for self report dichotomous drug use (one study, 193 participants RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.76)), continuous measures of drug use MD 0.70 (95% CI -5.33 to 6.73) or criminal activity RR 1.25 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.88)) between methadone and buprenorphine. Similiar results were found for comparisons with Diamorphine with no significant differences between the drugs for self report dichotomous drug use for arrest (one study, 825 participants RR 1.25 (95% CI 1.03-1.51)) or Naltrexone for dichotomous measures of re incarceration (one study, 44 participants, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.26)), and continuous outcome measure of crime MD -0.50 (95% CI -8.04 to 7.04)) or self report drug use MD 4.60 (95% CI -3.54 to 12.74)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacological interventions for drug-using offenders do appear to reduce overall subsequent drug use and criminal activity (but to a lesser extent). No statistically significant differences were displayed by treatment setting. Individual differences are displayed between the three pharmacological interventions (buprenorphine, methadone and naltrexone) when compared to a non pharmacological intervention, but not when compared to each other. Caution should be taken when interpreting these findings, as the conclusions are based on a small number of trials, and generalisation of these study findings should be limited mainly to male adult offenders. Additionally, many studies were rated at high risk of bias because trial information was inadequately described.

A systematic review of evidence-informed practices for patient care rounds in the ICU*

OBJECTIVES

Patient care rounds are a key mechanism by which healthcare providers communicate and make patient care decisions in the ICU but no synthesis of best practices for rounds currently exists. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the evidence for facilitators and barriers to patient care rounds in the ICU.

DATA SOURCES

Search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, and the Cochrane library through September 21, 2012.

STUDY SELECTION

Original, peer-reviewed research studies (no methodological restrictions) were selected, which described current practices, facilitators, or barriers to healthcare provider rounding in the ICU.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors with methodological and content expertise independently abstracted data using a prespecified abstraction tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The literature search identified 7,373 citations. Reviews of abstracts led to the retrieval of 136 full text articles for assessment; 43 articles in three languages (English, German, Spanish) were selected for review. Of these, 13 were ethnographic studies and 15 uncontrolled before-after studies. Six studies used control groups, including one cross-over randomized, one time-series, three cohort, and one controlled before-after study. A total of 13 facilitators and 9 barriers to patient care rounds were identified through a narrative and meta-synthesis of included studies. Identified facilitators suggest that the quality of rounds is improved when conducted by a multidisciplinary group of providers, with explicitly defined roles, using a standardized structure and goal-oriented approach that includes a best practices checklist. Barriers to quality patient care rounds include poor information retrieval and documentation, interruptions, long rounding times, and allied healthcare provider perceptions of not being valued by rounding physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the evidence base for best practices of patient care rounds in the ICU is limited, several practical and low-risk practices can be considered for implementation.

Telemedicine interventions for substance-use disorder: a literature review

A literature review was conducted to identify research into multiple-contact (i.e. extended) telemedicine interventions for substance-use disorder. The goals were: (1) to describe the methodology used to evaluate telemedicine interventions; (2) to identify the range of interventions which have been formally evaluated; and (3) to summarize the findings. Fourteen databases and Google Scholar were searched, as well as bibliographies of relevant papers and online conference abstracts. There were 50 studies which met the inclusion criteria, of which 50% were randomized controlled trials. The studies most frequently reported the effect on substance use and 61% of those findings fully supported telemedicine interventions. Although the studies reported persistent challenges in sustaining participation, 76% of the studies reporting on satisfaction indicated that participants were enthusiastic supporters of telemedicine. Only 30% of reviewed studies addressed the effect on resource utilization. The majority of studies reported evidence of clinical effectiveness, which justifies continued research in the field.

Measurement of substance abuse treatment outcomes over time

There are many different ways of calculating the impact of treatment on drug use; percentage of positive drug tests, probability of drug use, percentage of patients abstaining from any use, total number of days of use, daily probability of use and average days till next use, are some examples reported in the literature. We prefer average days till next use because (1) it allows intermittent drug use and relapse; (2) it fits the client's count of drug-free days, and (3) it simultaneously accounts for both tests results and time between tests. We show by way of an example, how conclusions arrived at using average days till next use are likely to be different from other measures in analysis of recent data from impact of online treatment on drug use.