Audit of Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities in ... - SA HealthInfo

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 17.908180Proportion of substance abuse treatment facilities providing health services(%).7060506356504038383025 2520100Medical historyPhysicalexaminationDetoxificationProvision ofpsychiatricmedicationProvision ofsubstitutionmedicationHarm reduction(IDU)Testing forinfectiousdiseasesHIV testing andcounsellingOverallBy province, facilities in the Northern Cape do not provide ancillary medical services ormedical harm-reduction interventions (Table 10). Harm reduction interventions amonginjection drug users are only conducted in Free State. Testing for hepatitis and otherinfectious diseases routinely occurs in Free State and Mpumalanga.Table 10. Proportion of facilities providing medical services by province.Types of ancillary healthservices providedFree State(N = 7)Limpopo(N = 2)Mpumalanga(N = 3)North West(N = 2)NorthernCapeOverall(N = 16)(N = 2)N % N % N % N % N % N %Medical history 6 85.7 2 100.0 3 100.0 2 100.0 0 0 13 81.3Physical examination 5 71.4 0 0 3 100.0 2 100.0 0 0 10 62.5Detoxification services 3 42.9 2 100.0 2 66.7 2 100.0 0 0 9 56.3Psychiatric medication 4 57.1 1 50.0 1 33.3 2 100.0 0 0 8 50.0Substitution medication 4 57.1 1 50.0 1 33.3 0 0 0 0 6 37.5Harm reduction (IDU) 4 57.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 25.0Test for infectious diseases 3 42.9 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 0 0 4 25.0HIV testing/counselling 2 28.6 1 50.0 3 100.0 0 0 0 0 6 37.548
3.7. ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO TREATMENT ENTRY FORVULNERABLE GROUPSThis section describes the extent to which substance abuse treatment facilities targetbarriers to treatment entry for clients from historically underserved groups. Theseactivities are grouped into (i) practices that improve awareness of substance abusetreatment options, (ii) practices that address logistical barriers such as finance ortransport, and (iii) practices that address cultural and linguistic barriers to treatment entry.For parts (i) and (ii) responses were grouped into four categories, namely: never, rarely(once or twice per year), sometimes (once every 3-4 months) and routinely (at least oncea month).Core findings:• Outreach in disadvantaged areas is routinely conducted by 87.5% of facilities• Facilities in Mpumalanga and North West are the most likely to conduct any form ofoutreach• In terms of logistic barriers, most treatment facilities do not provide transport services• Facilities in Free State are more likely to provide transport services both to the client andfamily• In terms of affordability barriers, 75.0% of facilities routinely have free treatmentslots/beds available• In terms of cultural and linguistic barriers, 81.3% of facilities employ African languagespeakingtherapists3.7.1. Practices that improve awareness of substance abuse treatment optionsOverall, 43.8% of facilities report conducting awareness campaigns relating to substanceabuse on a routine basis (at least once a month) and 56.3% report routinely distributinginformation and other materials relating to substance abuse treatment (Figure 18).Although 87.5% of facilities routinely conduct substance abuse-related outreach amongvulnerable groups and within disadvantaged areas, the inner city areas were relativelyneglected, with only 56.3% of facilities routinely operating in these areas. In addition,12.5% of facilities report that they never conduct outreach in the inner city areas and6.3% never distribute materials related to substance abuse treatment.49
Page 1 and 2: Alcohol & Drug Abuse Research UnitM
Page 3 and 4: 3.1.2 Treatment facility profile by
Page 5 and 6: 4.3 Targeting barriers to treatment
Page 7 and 8: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYA cross-sectional
Page 9 and 10: services to historically underserve
Page 11 and 12: use, reductions in criminal activit
Page 13 and 14: Despite high levels of substance ab
Page 15 and 16: Despite the apparent availability o
Page 17 and 18: treatment services provided. At pre
Page 19 and 20: use disorders whose physical and em
Page 21 and 22: delivery, treatment retention, and
Page 23 and 24: audit substance abuse treatment fac
Page 25 and 26: 2.8.3. Further data considerations
Page 27 and 28: Figure 1. Inpatient intensity of ca
Page 29 and 30: Since there is a large overlap betw
Page 31 and 32: the total client population (χ = 4
Page 33 and 34: Figure 7.Comparison of race profile
Page 35 and 36: services per month ranges from 13 t
Page 37 and 38: 3.4.1. Characteristics of staff at
Page 39 and 40: supervision. In contrast, a much sm
Page 41 and 42: In terms of client record-keeping,
Page 43 and 44: Core findings:• Compared to the p
Page 45 and 46: using 12-step approaches, 75.0% rep
Page 47: Figure 16. Proportion of treatment
Page 51 and 52: Table 11. Proportion of facilities
Page 55 and 56: Figure 20.Proportion of substance a
Page 61 and 62: 3.9.2. Monitoring of clients’ pro
Page 65 and 66: PART 4: DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDINGSW
Page 67 and 68: previous audits of specialist subst
Page 69 and 70: small proportion of South African d
Page 71 and 72: high levels of substance use among
Page 73 and 74: these barriers appears to significa
Page 75 and 76: appropriate services for Black/Afri
Page 77 and 78: clients progress post-treatment, an
Page 79 and 80: • The number of state facilities
Page 81 and 82: • Another way of ensuring (indire
Page 83 and 84: • The age appropriateness of serv
Page 85 and 86: REFERENCESAllard, S.W., Tolman, R.M
Page 87 and 88: Myers, B., & Fakier, N. (2007). Rep
Page 89: Zule, W.A., Lam, W.K., & Wechsberg,

Audit of Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities in ... - SA HealthInfo

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?