(1) Introduction: Drug-related deaths in the UK are at concerning high levels. The unknown content and purity of illicit substances can cause unpredictable adverse effects and thus a public health risk with no sign of abating. On-site drug checking is a public health strategy that has previously been implemented, predominantly in festival settings, but without Home Office licensing. (2) Aims: The aim of this study was to pilot the UK’s first pharmacist-led, Home Office-licensed community drug checking service. (3) Methods: A bespoke protocol incorporating legally, professionally and ethically binding documents was implemented. This free, confidential service ran between February and March 2019, was available to anyone over 18 who were purposefully recruited, gave informed consent and agreed to relinquish their drug sample. Samples were checked on-site within an established Substance Misuse Service (SMS) using a handheld Raman spectrometer to determine likely drug content and adulterants. In parallel, participants completed a questionnaire about their substance use and the drug sample(s) being tested. A pharmacist-led multidisciplinary approach was adopted to discuss the analytical findings. Informed by the results of the analysis and the questionnaire, people who used the service received tailored harm reduction advice. (4) Results and Discussion: The pilot operated for a total of four days over four weeks. Eleven people visited and relinquished a total of thirteen samples. Half of the participants had previously overdosed and were known to the SMS. Seventy per cent were male, all were White British individuals, 30% were employed and two people disclosed visiting from another nearby town. Samples included what was thought to be heroin, synthetic cannabinoids, stimulants, benzodiazepines and LSD and none required activation of the “alerts cascade” process. Most participants drank alcohol regularly and the concomitant use of traditional illicit drugs and prescribed medication (including opioids, anxiolytics and antidepressants) with sedating profiles was common. Given some of the ethical decisions and interpretation of the results, specialist pharmacist involvement was deemed essential. (5) Conclusions: This pilot demonstrated the proof-of-concept that a pharmacist-led Home Office-licensed drug checking service can be successfully implemented in community SMSs.

Substance misuse services need to meet the growing demand and needs of individuals using new psychoactive substances (NPS). A review of the literature identified a paucity of research regarding NPS use by these individuals and UK guidelines outline the need for locally tailored strategies. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify and explore key themes in relation to the use of NPS by individuals receiving community treatment for their substance use. Electronic records identified demographics and semi-structured interviews were undertaken. A thematic analysis of transcripts identified a variety of substance use histories; 50% were prescribed opiate substitutes and 25% used NPS as a primary substance. All were males, age range 26–59 years (SD = 9), who predominantly smoked cannabinoids and snorted/injected stimulant NPS. The type of NPS used was determined by affordability, availability, side-effect profile and desired effects (physical and psychological: 25% reported weight loss as motivation for their use). Poly-pharmacy, supplementation and displacement of other drugs were prevalent. In conclusion, NPS use and associated experiences vary widely among people receiving substance use treatment. Development of effective recovery pathways should be tailored to individuals, and include harm reduction strategies, psychosocial interventions, and effective signposting. Services should be vigilant for NPS use, “on top” use and diversion of prescriptions.

With rising numbers of drug-related deaths in the UK and globally, exploration of interventions that seek to reduce drug-related harm is essential. Drug checking services (DCS) allow people to submit drug samples for chemical analysis and receive feedback about the sample, as well as harm reduction advice. The use of DCS is often linked to festival and/or nightlife settings and to so-called ‘recreational’ drug use, but research has also shown the potential of community-based DCS as an intervention serving more varied demographics of people who use drugs, including more marginalised individuals and those experiencing drug dependence. Whilst there is a growing evidence base on the effectiveness of drug checking as a harm reduction intervention, there is still limited evidence of the underlying mechanisms and processes within DCS which may aid implementation and subsequent engagement of people who use drugs. This presents a challenge to understanding why engagement differs across types of DCS, and how best to develop and deliver services across different contexts and for different populations. To explore the contexts and mechanisms which impact engagement in community-based DCS, a realist review was undertaken to synthesise the international evidence for the delivery and implementation of DCS. There were 133 sources included in the review. From these sources the underlying contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes relating to DCS implementation and engagement were developed and refined into seven programme theories. The findings of this review are theoretically novel and hold practical relevance for the design of DCS, with implications for optimisation, tailoring, and implementing services to reach individuals in different settings.

FM is commonly misdiagnosed: all patients with a working diagnosis should be reassessed and reviewed to ensure that the most appropriate treatment is provided.

Background The impact of policing practices on the engagement of people who use drugs (PWUD) with harm reduction services is well evidenced. Although the police have traditionally taken an enforcement role in responding to drug use, it is increasingly clear that they can play an important part in multiagency delivery of harm reduction interventions. Despite this, there have been no studies exploring police officer perceptions of drug checking services (DCS), which provide analytical testing of client drug samples alongside harm reduction support and advice. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 police officers to explore the policing and legal challenges which could be encountered in the delivery of DCS in Scotland. Results Participants expressed general support for DCS and described this support as part of a wider organisational shift towards public health-oriented policing. Participants also discussed different potential approaches to the policing of areas surrounding DCS including: formal limits on police presence around the service and/or stop and search powers in relation to personal possession; the effective decriminalisation of personal possession within a specified boundary around the service; and informal agreements between local divisions and DCS outlining expected policing practices. Any formal limitation on the capacity of police officers to respond to community concerns was viewed as problematic and as having the potential to erode public confidence in policing. Participants also highlighted the potential for frontline officers to utilise discretion in ways which could undermine public health goals. Legislative change, or national strategic guidance from relevant stakeholders, was seen as a means of providing ‘cover’, enabling local divisions to support the operation of drug checking. Conclusions Despite a small sample of participants, this study summarises key challenges to be addressed in the implementation and operation of DCS in Scotland, and more widely. The paper concludes with suggested opportunities to develop approaches to policing that can facilitate rather than impede implementation and operation of these services.