HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS British Journal of Psychiatry Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rands, G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Rands, G.

The use of ‘drug dogs’ in psychiatry

Consultant Psychiatrist and College Tutor, Highgate Mental Health Centre, Camden and Islington Mental Health and Social Care Trust, London N19 5JG, and Honorary Senior Lecturer, Department of Mental Health Sciences, Royal Free and UCL Medical School. E-mail: gianetta.rands{at}candi.nhs.uk

This ‘opinion and debate’ (Gordon & Haider, Psychiatric Bulletin, June 2004, 28, 196-198) appeared in the Bulletin within weeks of our local site teaching a seminar on ‘Safer Services’. Concurrently, our local paper’s front page feature was entitled ‘Sniffer dogs for St Luke’s wards’, and contained a photograph of and many quotes from our Chief Executive. I took the opportunity to circulate a brief questionnaire to attenders of our multi-professional site teaching. Nine questionnaires were returned, eight from medical staff and one from nursing staff.

Views about random visits from sniffer dogs and their handlers included those that it would be a waste of money, would create an atmosphere of fear and distrust, would be counter-therapeutic, and may be an embarrassment to those patients (and staff) identified by sniffer dogs. However, they would reduce illicit substance misuse and dealer activities, could prevent non-users being introduced to drugs, may have an educational effect by promoting ‘zero-tolerance’, and knowing who is using illicit drugs could inform prescribing for those patients. There were concerns about consequences such as implementing prosecutions and discharge of patients/dealers that may not be therapeutic. There was also concern that these measures may not actually work.

Views about airport-style metal detectors at unit receptions were also solicited. Responders thought that these may reduce or prevent weapons being brought into our units, but they would require constant manning by staff with search skills (females for females), would be very expensive to maintain, would be slow for large numbers of people entering the unit at one time, e.g. students, and inconvenient for people going in and out of the unit frequently, e.g. doctors. There were also concerns about having to empty pockets, and what would happen when weapons were found – disarming people may cause violence in itself.

‘Would you feel safer at work with sniffer dogs and/or metal detectors in use?’ The replies were five Yes, three No, one not answered; three commented that adequate staffing levels and presence of security guards would help to make services safer for patients, visitors, and staff, and one person suggested DNA and fingerprints of all patients should be taken!

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rands, G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Rands, G.