The use of ‘drug dogs' in psychiatry

Perceptions of prevalence, consequences, and strategies for managing contraband substance use in an inpatient concurrent disorders program: A qualitative study of patient perspectives and survey of clinician perspectives

OBJECTIVE

Inpatient treatment programs for substance use disorders (SUDs) typically have an abstinence policy for patients, but unsanctioned substance use nonetheless takes place and can have significant negative clinical impacts. The current study sought to understand this problem from a patient perspective and to develop strategies for improved contraband substance management in an inpatient concurrent disorders sample.

METHODS

First, a qualitative study (n = 10; 60% female) was undertaken to ascertain perceived prevalence, impact, and patient-generated strategies. Second, an anonymous follow-up survey was conducted with unit staff clinicians to evaluate the suggested strategies.

RESULTS

Patients reported that contraband substance use was present and had significant negative consequences clinically. Recommendations from patients included more extensive urine drug screening, the use of drug-sniffing dogs, and direct contingencies for contraband use. Nineteen staff competed an anonymous follow-up questionnaire to evaluate the viability of these strategies, revealing variable perceptions of feasibility and effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

These findings emphasize the adverse consequences of contraband substance use in addiction treatment programs and identify patient-preferred strategies for managing this challenge.

Introduction of a drug-detection dog programme in mental health inpatient units: A mixed-methods study of consumer, staff, and carers' perceptions

Many consumers admitted to mental health inpatient units also use illicit drugs, and some continue to do so while receiving treatment. In an attempt to curb the impact of illicit drug use, one of Australia's largest mental health services introduced a programme of drug-detection dog (DDD) searches. Our aim was to evaluate perceptions of the DDD programme among mental health consumers, staff, and carers. A mixed-methods research design using a concurrent triangulation approach was adopted, involving three focus group discussions with consumer, staff, and carer groups, and a structured survey among 94 consumers who were receiving treatment and 102 staff working in the units at the time of a DDD visit. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, and descriptive and inferential statistics. Major themes were that: (i) drug use in these units is perceived as 'prevalent' and 'destructive'; (ii) the DDD programme is 'beneficial' but 'incongruous' in a health-care setting; (iii) consumers are 'uninformed'; and (iv) consequences should be 'customized' to circumstances. Survey results corroborated qualitative themes, with the exception that although concerns about incongruity do exist, they were not prevalent and were outweighed by positive perceptions of the programme. Most perceptions were consistent between consumers and staff. However, consumers tended to think that, if found, drugs should be confiscated, whereas staff were more strongly in favour of the consumer being discharged. In conclusion, the DDD programme was seen as a positive step towards addressing drug use in mental health units. However, improved dissemination of information to consumers through verbal and written communication is required.

Police and sniffer dogs in psychiatric settings

Aims and Method

To study the views of staff and patients on the use of sniffer dogs to detect illicit drugs and the prosecution of in-patients suspected of taking illicit drugs. A 15-item self-report questionnaire was given to all in-patients and staff who had any contact with patients in a medium-secure unit. Responses to the individual statements were measured on a five-point Likert scale and staff and patients' responses were compared.

Results

We achieved a response rate of 63% (patient response rate, 71.6%; staff response rate, 60.7%). Overall there were fewer differences than anticipated, although, as expected, staff viewed the impact of illicit drugs more negatively than patients, and on the other hand, patients viewed the use of sniffer dogs and police involvement more negatively than the staff did.

Clinical Implications

Notice ought to be taken of the discordance between staff and patients' views (particularly in relation to consent and confidentiality) when attempting to detect and manage illicit drug use among psychiatric in-patients.