Review of management priorities for invasive infections in people who inject drugs: highlighting the need for patient-centred multidisciplinary care.

There has been a global increase in the burden of invasive infections in people who inject drugs (PWID). It is essential that patient-centred multidisciplinary care is provided in the management of these infections to engage PWID in care and deliver evidence-based management and preventive strategies. The multidisciplinary team should include infectious diseases, addictions medicine (inclusive of alcohol and other drug services), surgery, psychiatry, pain specialists, pharmacy, nursing staff, social work and peer support workers (where available) to help address the comorbid conditions that may have contributed to the patient's presentation. PWID have a range of antimicrobial delivery options that can be tailored in a patient-centred manner and thus are not limited to prolonged hospital admissions to receive intravenous antimicrobials for invasive infections. These options include discharge with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy, long-acting lipoglycopeptides (dalbavancin and oritavancin) and early oral antimicrobials. Open and respectful discussion with PWID including around harm reduction strategies may decrease the risk of repeat presentations with injecting-related harms.

A Case Study of Pain Management at End-of-Life for a Patient on High-Dose Buprenorphine.

In Australia, high-dose sublingual buprenorphine and long-acting injectable buprenorphine are available. High-dose buprenorphine is used predominantly in the setting of opioid use disorder and has a role in chronic pain. Palliative care specialists are increasingly involved in pain management and end-of-life care for patients on these medications, yet there is a lack of education and training about high-dose buprenorphine for palliative care specialists. We describe our experience caring for John (fictional name), a gentleman with chronic pain and a new high-grade post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder prescribed high-dose buprenorphine. We share the challenges and experience in caring for John as he deteriorated into the terminal phase and died of his illness. We include potential management options and the rationale for our decision to rotate John from high-dose sublingual buprenorphine to subcutaneous oxycodone. We conclude with practice implications and suggestions for improved patient care and clinician experience, including increased collaboration between palliative medicine, acute pain, and addiction medicine services, increased education and training for palliative care specialists about high-dose buprenorphine, and ultimately the development of consensus high-dose buprenorphine to oral morphine equivalence guidelines.

Screening for risky drinkers among hospitalised inpatients using the AUDIT: A feasibility, point prevalence and data linkage study.

INTRODUCTION: Risky drinking frequently remains undiagnosed or untreated, including in hospitalised inpatients. Using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), we assessed the feasibility of screening for risky drinking and whether screening results aligned with alcohol-attributable diagnoses in an inpatient population. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey across a tertiary health service in Melbourne, Australia. Researchers collected demographics, AUDIT scores and acceptability from all eligible adult inpatients available on day of survey. Main outcomes were prevalence of risky drinking (AUDIT ≥8), mean AUDIT score and patient acceptability. Identification of risky drinking by the abbreviated 'AUDIT-C' or discharge diagnoses (extracted by data-linkage with medical records) was compared. RESULTS: Of 473 eligible inpatients, 61% (n = 289) participated, 22% (n = 103) were unavailable and 17% (n = 81) declined. Median age was 64 years (IQR = 48, 76); 54% (n = 157) were male. Mean AUDIT score was 4.4 (SD = 5.5). Risky drinking prevalence was 20% (n = 57), 2% (n = 7) had scores suggestive of dependence (AUDIT ≥20, a subset of risky drinkers). Odds of risky drinking were reduced in females (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.09, 0.41; P < 0.001) and participants ≥70 years (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07, 0.71; P = 0.01). Alcohol-attributable diagnoses did not consistently align with risky drinking, with half of inpatients with wholly attributable diagnoses classified as low risk. Most inpatients considered screening acceptable (89%, n = 256). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Pre-admission risky drinking was evident in one-fifth of hospital inpatients, but alcohol-attributable diagnoses were unreliable proxy measures of risky drinking. Screening in-patients with the AUDIT was acceptable to inpatients and can be feasibly implemented in an Australian tertiary hospital setting.

ADHD and Judgments of Impulsivity in Rule Violations.

Participants with ADHD (n = 45) and participants without ADHD (n = 130, total n = 175) judged hypothetical moral and conventional rule violations that varied the impulsivity of the act, the ADHD diagnosis, and the gender of the actor in order to examine (1) social reasoning about impulsiveness and (2) whether participants infer impulsiveness from the characteristics of the actor, including gender and ADHD-status. Moral violations were judged more negatively than conventional violations, even when they were impulsive. The characteristics of the actor influenced judgments in that participants judged boys' behavior as more acceptable, as having less control, and as deserving of less punishment compared to girls. In addition, actors who were described as having ADHD were judged overall more positively. Participants with ADHD judged that all actors should receive similar punishment, regardless of the actor's ADHD diagnosis, while participants without ADHD judged actors with ADHD should receive less punishment than those without.