New Psychoactive substances (NPS): results of a questionnaire on the definition of NPS, proposals to establish a forensic centre for excellence, and improving data collection and information sharing

7. Conclusions

This report has summarised the results of the 54 responses to the NPS Questionnaire issued by the Scottish Government in September 2015. The questions related to the definition of NPS, proposal to establish a Forensic Centre for Excellence, and views about how to improve data collection and information sharing on NPS between stakeholders. The key points relating to each of these sets of questions are summarised below.

7.1 Defining New or Novel Psychoactive Substances

Overall there were high levels of agreement amongst stakeholders that the legal definition of psychoactive substances set out in the Psychoactive Substances Act should be adopted by a wide range of stakeholders. There were also high levels of agreement with proposals to categorise NPS based on their effects, in line with the Drugs Wheel Model. However, there was some disagreement about whether the proposed categories could be applied by people who were not experts in NPS. This suggests that clear guidance on the use of the model, and in particular guidance on how to categorise different substances, would be required if the proposal was to be implemented. Respondents also suggested that some form of training or basic awareness raising, as well as input from experts, would be required in order to assign substances to categories. Categorisation based on actual effect rather than intended effect, and reducing the number of categories were also suggested as potential options to minimise confusion.

7.2 Identifying and detecting NPS

Functions of a Forensic Centre for Excellence

There was broad agreement amongst respondents with the proposed functions of a Forensic Centre for Excellence. It was recognised that a Forensic Centre for Excellence would have a strong role to play in enforcement. There was also strong support for the need to link forensic testing of specific NPS with information on harms. The rationale provided for this was that it could potentially increase the pool of substances tested and knowledge of these. Stakeholders noted that this could accelerate learning, and be used to issue alerts and harm reduction advice, particularly if a substance was linked to a critical incident.

Capacity amongst stakeholders to support a Centre for Excellence

A number of respondents provided information about how they could potentially support the proposed functions of a Forensic Centre for Excellence. This ranged from chemical analysis including isometric ID and toxicology analysis, to collating local intelligence to feed into a central hub of information.

Key priority areas for submitting NPS samples for identification

While there was some disagreement about the key priority areas for submitting NPS samples, overall the majority agreed with the proposed list. There was also strong support for NHS Emergency Departments to be able to submit biological samples for testing. This was a key issue raised by a large number of respondents. A small number of respondents suggested that additional areas that could submit samples were members of the public, the National Crime Agency and potentially Local Authorities.

Collecting and sharing data on harms associated with NPS

None of the respondents disagreed that it would be useful if Emergency Departments captured and held data on harms associated with specific NPS samples. However, it was suggested that changes to existing data capture systems would be needed to achieve this. Respondents identified a range of challenges that would have to be overcome in order to deliver improvements in data capture systems, including the need to increase capacity within services to record data on NPS. The challenge of knowing whether symptoms were NPS related or not, and gaps in knowledge about NPS and their effects were also seen as key barriers.

Suggestions for overcoming these barriers included capitalising on existing systems, such as the National Poisons Information Service Toxbase database, or processes established as part of existing research projects (e.g. the IONA project). It was also emphasised that robust information governance processes would need to be put in place to facilitate improved information sharing.

Respondents identified a large number of stakeholders who would potentially benefit from sharing data on harms, including those in health, enforcement, the third sector, local authority and members of the public amongst others.

7.3 Improving information sharing on NPS

The third section of the questionnaire considered issues relating to improving information sharing on NPS. This emerged as a key priority among respondents. A number of suggestions for the content and nature of dissemination of information on NPS were made, although it was recognised that different stakeholders might need different formats or levels of access to information, depending on their needs.

There were high levels of agreement that a Forensic Centre for Excellence should manage and disseminate alerts on new and potentially harmful NPS. However, respondents emphasised that the timing of alerts and quality control of the information disseminated would be critical to the success of an alert system. Suggestions were also made about the need to align any new process with alert systems that were already in place.

There were different views about whether information should be disseminated to members of the public or not. It was also suggested that any alert system should be for all substances of misuse and not specific to NPS.

7.4 Additional questions on identifying NPS for the purposes of prosecution

The subset of respondents who were asked additional questions about identifying NPS for the purposes of prosecution reported that they would anticipate submitting both drug samples and biological samples (including blood or plasma) for forensic testing, mostly in small quantities. The exception to this was health services, where potentially much larger quantities were expected.

Respondents also anticipated a number of benefits to be gained if there was improved access to reference standards held by a Centre for Excellence.