Comparison of Government and Non-Government Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Treatment Service Delivery for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Community.

BACKGROUND: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations are more likely to misuse alcohol and other drugs (AOD), compared to the general population. However, LGBT engagement with AOD treatment is often precluded by insensitivity and misunderstanding of LGBT issues. These treatment barriers may be a consequence of either worker attitudes, organizational factors or a combination of both. Few studies have compared service context as an impediment to AOD treatment. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study sought to examine and compare staff attitudes, knowledge and awareness of LGBT issues in two state-wide AOD services within Australia. One organization was a government service, whilst the other was faith based. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of a convenience sample (N = 130) of workers employed in a state-wide government AOD service (n = 65), and a state-wide non-government service (n = 65) was conducted. Participants self-completed a questionnaire comprising tools previously used to assess staff attitudes, knowledge and awareness of LGBT issues. RESULTS: Few significant differences in attitudes and awareness of LGBT issues between government and non-government respondents were found. Nearly all respondents were supportive of LGBT persons irrespective of organizational context, with a small number of negative views. Although most respondents demonstrated awareness of organizational policies and practices relating to LGBT clients, many were "unsure" or "neutral" of what these might be. CONCLUSION: It is confirming that the majority of staff report supportive attitudes towards LGBT clients. Findings suggest that organizations need to continue to take leadership to strengthen organizational training and capacity to deliver LGBT friendly AOD treatment practices.

Clinical practice in prevention of neonatal HSV infection: a survey of obstetrical care providers in Alberta.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the current practice patterns of physicians providing prenatal care in Alberta with respect to prevention of neonatal herpes simplex virus (HSV) infection. METHOD: A 22-item questionnaire was mailed to all obstetricians and family physicians providing obstetrical care in Alberta. The questionnaire included demographic and practice details, and details of management of patients with a history or symptoms of HSV lesions, including practice in prescribing antiviral therapy, recommending elective Caesarean section, and ordering serology. Two reminders were mailed as necessary. RESULTS: Responses were received from 89 obstetricians (57%) and 94 family physicians (54%). Antiviral therapy was prescribed for the prevention of neonatal HSV infection in the third trimester by 97% of obstetricians versus 84% of family physicians (P = 0.007), with acyclovir being the most commonly prescribed agent. Caesarean section was offered "most of the time" to women with primary HSV infection in the third trimester by 65% of physicians, to women with prodromal symptoms during the intrapartum period by 57% (no significant differences between groups), and to women with HSV lesions by 92% of obstetricians and 82% of family physicians (P = 0.032). Women with a negative HSV history but whose partner had known HSV were offered serological testing "most of the time" by 30% of physicians (no significant difference between groups). CONCLUSION: Despite the encouraging survey results, obstetrical providers should be encouraged to offer Caesarean section to women with a primary HSV infection in the third trimester and to offer serological testing in discordant couples. These simple strategies can help to prevent neonatal HSV infection and its long-term consequences.