Trial reportBMC emergency medicine2024
Take-home naloxone administered in emergency settings: feasibility of intervention implementation in a cluster randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOpioids kill more people than any other class of drug. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist which can be distributed in kits for peer administration. We assessed the feasibility of implementing a Take-home Naloxone (THN) intervention in emergency settings, as part of designing a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT).
methodsWe undertook a clustered RCT on sites pairing UK Emergency Departments (ED) and ambulance services. At intervention sites, we recruited emergency healthcare practitioners to supply THN to patients presenting with opioid overdose or related condition, with recruitment across 2019-2021. We assessed feasibility of intervention implementation against four predetermined progression criteria covering site sign up and staff training; identification of eligible patients; issue of THN kits and Serious Adverse Events.
resultsAt two intervention sites, randomly selected from 4, 299/687 (43.5%) clinical staff were trained (ED1 = 107, AS1 = 121, ED2 = 25, AS2 = 46). Sixty THN kits were supplied to eligible patients (21.7%) (n: ED1 = 36, AS1 = 4, ED2 = 16, AS2 = 4). Across sites, kits were not issued to eligible patients on a further 164 occasions, with reasons reported including: staff forgot (n = 136), staff too busy (n = 15), and suspected intentional overdose (n = 3), no kit available (n = 2), already given by drugs nurse (n = 4), other (n = 4). Staff recorded 626 other patients as ineligible but considered for inclusion, with reasons listed as: patient admitted to hospital (n = 194), patient absconded (n = 161) already recruited (n = 64), uncooperative or abusive (n = 55), staff not trained (n = 43), reduced consciousness level (n = 41), lack of capacity (n = 35), patient in custody (n = 21), other (n = 12). No adverse events were reported.
conclusionStaff and patient recruitment were low and varied widely by site. This feasibility study did not meet progression criteria; a fully powered RCT is not planned.
trial registrationISRCTN13232859 (Registered 16/02/2018).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.