Analysis of Data from a Novel Drug Identification Service
Background: The majority of drag identification calls (Drug ID) answered by our Poison Center are for controlled substances. In the past, most of these calls were handled by Specialists in Poison Information with little to no formal training in substance abuse, addiction, harm reduction or motivatio...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Tagungsbericht |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background: The majority of drag identification calls (Drug ID) answered by our Poison Center are for controlled substances. In the past, most of these calls were handled by Specialists in Poison Information with little to no formal training in substance abuse, addiction, harm reduction or motivational interviewing. Methods: A separate Drug ID service staffed with substance abuse counselors was implemented in October 2006. The counselors were asked to identify the tablets and provide safety information (eg. avoiding overuse of acetaminophen, avoiding mixing of sedative/hypnotics with opioids/ethanol) whenever possible. The counselors were also asked to provide screening, brief intervention, referral for treatment (SBRT) whenever appropriate. A data collection tool specific to the Drug ID service was developed. It was adjusted/modified after 13 months to include more specific data. Results: Over a 15 month period, 4633 Drug ID calls were documented by the Drug ID service. Age distribution of the callers: 9% < 21, 38% 21 to 30, 24% 31 to 40, 19% 41 to 50, 7% 51 to 60 years of age. Ethnicity: 87% were Caucasian, 10% African-American and 3% others. Identified drags: 33% opioids, 33% other prescription drugs (eg. antihypertensives, antibiotics, etc), 11% benzodiazepines, 9% unknown, 6% non-prescription drags, 5% muscle relaxants and 1% prescription stimulants. Safety information was delivered in 55% of calls. SBRT was performed in 35.3% of calls. Interest was present in 30% of callers, 63% were neutral and 7% were not interested. In the adjusted/modified version of the data collection (604 calls total), we identified 47% of the callers as drug users themselves, 23% as family members and 30% other. Discussion: The Drug ID service was able to provide safety information and SBRT. Approximately one third of callers were receptive to this information and only a small percentage was unreceptive. Conclusion: The implementation of a Drag ID service staffed by substance abuse counselors was successful in delivering safety messages and providing SBRT to drag ID callers and their family members. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1556-3650 |
DOI: | 10.1080/15563650802255033 |