Aims and MethodsA postal questionnaire of all pre-membership psychiatric trainees in the West Midlands was used to investigate the role of the educational supervisor. The trainees were asked about their experience of educational supervision, and also asked to rank a number of possible roles for their supervisor in order of importance.ResultsA response rate of 70% was achieved. Trainees rated regular appraisal and assessment of skills and deficits as the most important role of the educational supervisor, but had only experienced this in 55% of their training posts thus far. Less than half of the respondents had developed a written educational plan with their educational supervisors, and trainees rated this the least important task of good educational supervision.Clinical ImplicationsThe results of this survey inform the training agenda for trainers, and emphasise the need to equip consultants with the skills to appraise their trainee's educational development.

In 2021, during a drug-related death crisis in the UK, the Government published its ten-year drugs strategy. This article, written in collaboration with the Faculty of Public Health and the Association of Directors of Public Health, assesses whether this Strategy is evidence-based and consistent with international calls to promote public health approaches to drugs, which put ‘people, health and human rights at the centre’. Elements of the Strategy are welcome, including the promise of significant funding for drug treatment services, the effects of which will depend on how it is utilized by services and local commissioners and whether it is sustained. However, unevidenced and harmful measures to deter drug use by means of punishment continue to be promoted, which will have deleterious impacts on people who use drugs. An effective public health approach to drugs should tackle population-level risk factors, which may predispose to harmful patterns of drug use, including adverse childhood experiences and socioeconomic deprivation, and institute evidence-based measures to mitigate drug-related harm. This would likely be more effective, and just, than the continuation of policies rooted in enforcement. A more dramatic re-orientation of UK drug policy than that offered by the Strategy is overdue.

Aims and methods A postal questionnairesent to all psychiatrists working in four NHStrusts in and around Birmingham was used to survey the number of new cases of drug and alcohol misuse identified in the previous month and the degree of postgraduate training in the management of such cases. Attitudes and beliefs about substance misuseproblems were also elicited. Results A responserate of 70%wasachieved acrosssix sub-specialities in psychiatry and four levels of training. Of the 143respondents, over half had identified at least one new case of alcohol (61%)or drug misuse(55%)in the previous month. Approximately half of the sample admitted to having received no training in management of substance misuse cases in the previous five years (45% alcohol. 50% drugs). There was general agreement about the potential management role of the doctor in the field, but less consensuson whether the clinician had a responsibility to intervene in such cases. A clear discrepancy was demonstrated between psychiatrists' perceptions of the evidence supporting various treatments and the actual evidence base. Clinical implications The study highlightsthe pressing need for training psychiatristsat all levels and in all subspecialities in the management of substance misuse.

IntroductionOpioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and persistent disorder. The standard-of-care treatment is daily maintenance dosing of sublingual buprenorphine (BUP-SL) or oral methadone (MET). Monthly, extended-release, subcutaneous injectable buprenorphine (BUP-XR) has been developed to enhance treatment effectiveness. This study aims to investigate the experiences of participants who have been offered BUP-XR (evaluation 1), health-related quality-of-life among participants who have opted to receive BUP-XR longer term (evaluation 2) and the experiences of participants allocated to receive BUP-XR or BUP-SL or MET with the offer of adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention (evaluation 3).Methods and analysisThree qualitative–quantitative (mixed-methods) evaluations embedded in a five-centre, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial of BUP-XR versus BUP-SL and MET in the UK. Evaluation 1 is a four-centre interview anchored on an OUD-related topic guide and conducted after the 24-week trial endpoint. Evaluation 2 is a two-centre interview anchored on medications for opioid use disorder-specific quality-of-life topic guide conducted among participants after 12–24 months. Evaluation 3: single-centre interview after the 24-week trial endpoint. All evaluations include selected trial clinical measures, with evaluation 2 incorporating additional questionnaires. Target participant recruitment for evaluations 1 and 2 is 15 participants per centre (n=60 and n=30, respectively). Recruitment for evaluation 3 is 15 participants per treatment arm (n=30). Each evaluation will be underpinned by theory, drawing on constructs from the behavioural model for health service use or the health-related quality-of-life model. Qualitative data analysis will be by iterative categorisation.Ethics and disseminationStudy protocol, consent materials and questionnaires were approved by the London-Brighton and Sussex research ethics committee (reference: 19/LO/0483) and the Health Research Authority (IRAS project number 255522). Participants will be provided with information sheets and informed written consent will be obtained for each evaluation. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals.Trial registration number2018-004460-63.

No abstract