Can the MIRACLE2 Score Be Used in the Prehospital Environment and Is It Useful? An Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: The MIRACLE2 score has been developed for use in a primary percutaneous coronary intervention center. It is unclear if it is feasible in the helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) setting. METHODS: The computerized system at 1 UK HEMS was interrogated between December 1, 2020, and May 1, 2022, for the components of the MIRACLE2 score (recorded contemporaneously) plus demographics and outcomes in all post-return of spontaneous circulation patients conveyed to the hospital. pH was excluded because of no point-of-care testing resulting in a modified MIRACLE2 score (maximum score of 9). Data were analyzed using the chi-square test; P < .05 was statistically significant. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty patients (240 males) with out-of-hospital cardiac arrests were reviewed. Ninety-two adult patients with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrests had sustained return of spontaneous circulation and a median MIRACLE2 score of 4 (range, 0-7). Forty-seven patients died before hospital discharge; the median MIRACLE2 score was higher in those who died (4) than those who survived (1.5, P < .01); 90.3% of those with a score ≥ 5 were triaged to an emergency department rather than directly to a catheterization laboratory. CONCLUSION: A modified MIRACLE2 score can be calculated in the HEMS setting. The benefit of point-of-care testing pH requires investigation. There may be a benefit in predicting outcomes in this nondifferentiated group, but additional research is required.

Involvement of people who use alcohol and other drug services in the development of patient-reported measures of experience: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported measures that assess satisfaction and experience are increasingly utilised in healthcare sectors, including the alcohol and other drug (AOD) sector. This scoping review identifies how and to what extent people accessing AOD services have been involved in the development of satisfaction and experience measures to date. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Google and Google Scholar were searched. Included papers described the development and/or implementation of a multiple-item measure of patient-reported experience or satisfaction specifically for people accessing AOD treatment and/or harm reduction programmes. If there was more than one paper, key papers were chosen that described each measure. The method of development, including service user involvement, was assessed against a framework generated for this review. Two reviewers were involved at each stage. RESULTS: Thirty measures-23 satisfaction and 7 experience-were identified. Sixteen measures reported some level of involvement by people accessing AOD services in their development, although, for most measures, at a relatively low level. This involvement increased over the time span of the review becoming more frequent in later years. Only four measures were developed for use in harm reduction-specific settings, and fewer than half reported undertaking analysis of underlying scale structure and constructs. CONCLUSION: Several gaps could be addressed to enhance the measurement of patient-centred care in the AOD sector, including: developing experience measures for use in harm reduction settings and across various AOD settings in a service system; improved reporting of psychometric properties of these measures and increasing commitment to the meaningful involvement of AOD service users in measure development. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This scoping review is part of a broader codesign project that involves a partnership between the peak organisation for AOD services and the peer-based AOD consumer organisation in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. These organisations are working closely together to engage with AOD service users, service providers and policy makers in this codesign project. As such, the Executive Director of the peer-based AOD consumer organisation is involved as a co-author of this scoping review.

'I just thought that was the best thing for me to do at this point': Exploring patient experiences with depot buprenorphine and their motivations to discontinue.

INTRODUCTION: Long-acting injectable depot buprenorphine is a recent addition to the suite of opioid agonist therapies (OAT) used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD). However, there has been little research that focuses on the lived experience of people receiving depot buprenorphine treatment and reasons for why people decide to discontinue. The aim of this study was to explore what it is like to receive depot buprenorphine and to understand the motivations behind why people discontinue. METHODS: Open-ended, semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2021 and January 2022 with individuals who were either currently receiving depot buprenorphine or had discontinued or were in the process of discontinuing depot buprenorphine. Liberati, et al.'s (2022) adaptation of Dixon-Woods's (2006) candidacy framework was used to analyse the participant experiences. RESULTS: 40 participants (26 male, 13 female, 1 undisclosed; mean age 42 years) were interviewed about their experience with depot buprenorphine. At the time of the interview, 21 were currently receiving depot buprenorphine and 19 had discontinued this treatment or were in the process of discontinuing. Participants cited 4 key reasons why they decided to discontinue depot buprenorphine:1) feeling forced into the program, 2) experiencing negative side-effects, 3) finding the treatment ineffective, and 4) wanting to stop depot buprenorphine/OAT to use opioids again or feeling 'cured' and no longer in need of OAT. Participants were ultimately discussing issues related to clinician-patient power relations, agency and bodily autonomy, and the pursuit of well-being. CONCLUSION: Depot buprenorphine remains a promising treatment for OUD and offers potential to improve treatment adherence. Instances of restricted OAT choice and consumer concerns regarding a lack of agency must be addressed in order to enhance therapeutic relationships. Clinicians and other healthcare workers in this field also need greater access to information about depot buprenorphine to better address issues patients face during treatment. More research is required to understand patient and treatment choice given the options of these new treatment formulations.

Learning that cannot come from a book: An evaluation of an undergraduate alcohol and other drugs subject co-produced with experts by experience.

Alcohol and other drugs (AOD) use is a significant public health issue and is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. Despite this, people who use drugs are often reluctant to seek care due to the lack of trauma-informed treatment and harm reduction treatment options, as well as experiences of stigma and discrimination in health services. Arguably, AOD education that is co-produced with people who use alcohol and drugs can enhance future health professionals' ability to practice in ways that support the needs of this population. This paper reports on a qualitative co-evaluation of a co-produced undergraduate nursing AOD subject. The AOD subject was co-planned, co-designed, co-delivered, and co-evaluated with experts by experience, who have a lived experience of substance dependence and work as advocates and peer workers. Following the delivery of the subject in 2021 and 2022, focus groups were undertaken with 12 nursing students. Focus group data indicate that the co-produced subject supported participants to understand and appreciate how stigma impacts on nursing care and how to recognize and undertake 'good' nursing care that was oriented to the needs of service users. Student participants noted that being co-taught by people who use drugs was particularly powerful for shifting their nursing perspectives on AOD use and nursing care and took learning beyond what could be understood from a book. Findings indicate that co-produced AOD education can shift nursing students' perceptions of AOD use by providing access to tacit knowledge and embodied equitable and collaborative relationships with people who use drugs.

An overview of take-home naloxone programs in Australia.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Take-home naloxone (THN) programs commenced in Australia in 2012 in the Australian Capital Territory and programs now operate in five Australian jurisdictions. The purpose of this paper is to record the progress of THN programs in Australia, to provide a resource for others wanting to start THN projects, and provide a tool for policy makers and others considering expansion of THN programs in this country and elsewhere. DESIGN AND METHODS: Key stakeholders with principal responsibility for identified THN programs operating in Australia provided descriptions of program development, implementation and characteristics. Short summaries of known THN programs from each jurisdiction are provided along with a table detailing program characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Data collected across current Australian THN programs suggest that to date over 2500 Australians at risk of overdose have been trained and provided naloxone. Evaluation data from four programs recorded 146 overdose reversals involving naloxone that was given by THN participants. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Peer drug user groups currently play a central role in the development, delivery and scale-up of THN in Australia. Health professionals who work with people who use illicit opioids are increasingly taking part as alcohol and other drug-related health agencies have recognised the opportunity for THN provision through interactions with their clients. Australia has made rapid progress in removing regulatory barriers to naloxone since the initiation of the first THN program in 2012. However, logistical and economic barriers remain and further work is needed to expand access to this life-saving medication.