Search

Objectives: Fentanyl has contributed to a sharp rise in the toxicity of the unregulated drug supply and fatal overdoses in Canada. It has also changed injection practices. Injection frequency has increased as a result and so has equipment sharing and health-related risks. The aim of this analysis was to explore the impact of safer supply programs on injection practices from the perspective of clients and providers in Ontario, Canada. Methods: The data set included qualitative interviews with 52 clients and 21 providers that were conducted between February and October 2021 across four safer supply programs. Interview excerpts discussing injection practices were extracted, screened, coded and then grouped into themes. Results: We identified three themes, each theme corresponding to a change in injection practices. The first change was a decrease in the amount of fentanyl used and a decrease in injection frequency. The second change involved switching to injecting hydromorphone tablets instead of fentanyl. Finally, the third change was stopping injecting altogether and taking safer supply medications orally. Conclusion: Safer supply programs can contribute to reducing injection-related health risks in addition to overdose risks. More specifically, they have the potential to address disease prevention and health promotion gaps that stand-alone downstream harm reduction interventions cannot address, by working upstream and providing a safer alternative to fentanyl. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The area of substance use is notable for its early uptake of incentives and wealth of research on the topic. This is particularly true for prize-based contingency management (PB-CM), a particular type of incentive that uses a fishbowl prize-draw design. Given that PB-CM interventions are gaining momentum to address the dual public health crises of opiate and stimulant use in North America and beyond, it is imperative that we better understand and critically analyze their implications. Purpose: The purpose of this scoping review paper is to identify the characteristics of PB-CM interventions for people who use substances and explore ethical implications documented in the literature as well as emerging ethical implications that merit further consideration. Methods: The PRISMA-ScR checklist was used in conjunction with Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework to guide this scoping review. We completed a two-pronged analysis of 52 research articles retrieved through a comprehensive search across three key scholarly databases. After extracting descriptive data from each article, we used 9 key domains to identify characteristics of the interventions followed by an analysis of ethical implications. Results: We analyzed the characteristics of PB-CM interventions which were predominantly quantitative studies aimed at studying the efficacy of PB-CM interventions. All of the interventions used a prize-draw format with a classic magnitude of 50%. Most of the interventions combined both negative and positive direction to reward processes, behaviors, and/or outcomes. One ethical implication was identified in the literature: the risk of gambling relapse. We also found three emerging ethical implications by further analyzing participant characteristics, intervention designs, and potential impact on the patient–provider relationship. These implications include the potential deceptive nature of PB-CM, the emphasis placed on the individual behaviors to the detriment of social and structural determinants of health, and failures to address vulnerability and power dynamics. Conclusions: This scoping review offers important insights into the ethics on PB-CM and its implications for research ethics, clinical ethics, and public health ethics. Additionally, it raises important questions that can inform future research and dialogues to further tease out the ethical issues associated with PB-CM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In May 2018, St. Paul's Hospital (SPH) in Vancouver (Canada) opened an outdoor peer-led overdose prevention site (OPS) operated in partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health and RainCity Housing. At the end of 2020, the partnered OPS moved to a new location, which created a gap in service for SPH inpatients and outpatients. To address this gap, which was magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic, SPH opened a nurse-led OPS in February 2021. This paper describes the steps leading to the implementation of the nurse-led OPS, its impact, and lessons learned. Methods: Four steps paved the way for the opening of the OPS: (1) identifying the problem, (2) seeking ethics guidance, (3) adapting policies and practices, and (4) supporting and training staff. Results: The OPS is open between 10:00 and 20:00 and staffed by two nurses per shift. It is accessible to all patients including inpatients, patients in the Emergency Department, and patients attending outpatient services. Between February 1, 2021 and October 23, 2021, the OPS recorded 1612 visits for the purpose of injection, for an average weekly visit number of 42. A total of 46 overdoses were recorded in that 9-month period. Thirty-seven (80%) required administration of naloxone and 12 (26%) required a code blue response. Conclusions: Due to the unique nature of our OPS, we learned many important lessons in the process leading to the opening of the site and the months that followed. We conclude the paper with lessons learned grouped into six main categories, namely engagement, communication, access, staff education and support, data collection, and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In May 2018, St. Paul's Hospital (SPH) in Vancouver (Canada) opened an outdoor peer-led overdose prevention site (OPS) operated in partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health and RainCity Housing. At the end of 2020, the partnered OPS moved to a new location, which created a gap in service for SPH inpatients and outpatients. To address this gap, which was magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic, SPH opened a nurse-led OPS in February 2021. This paper describes the steps leading to the implementation of the nurse-led OPS, its impact, and lessons learned. Methods: Four steps paved the way for the opening of the OPS: (1) identifying the problem, (2) seeking ethics guidance, (3) adapting policies and practices, and (4) supporting and training staff. Results: The OPS is open between 10:00 and 20:00 and staffed by two nurses per shift. It is accessible to all patients including inpatients, patients in the Emergency Department, and patients attending outpatient services. Between February 1, 2021 and October 23, 2021, the OPS recorded 1612 visits for the purpose of injection, for an average weekly visit number of 42. A total of 46 overdoses were recorded in that 9-month period. Thirty-seven (80%) required administration of naloxone and 12 (26%) required a code blue response. Conclusions: Due to the unique nature of our OPS, we learned many important lessons in the process leading to the opening of the site and the months that followed. We conclude the paper with lessons learned grouped into six main categories, namely engagement, communication, access, staff education and support, data collection, and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The intersection of dual public health emergencies—the COVID-19 pandemic and the drug toxicity crisis—has led to an urgent need for acute care based harm reduction for unregulated opioid use. Emergency Departments (EDs) as Complex Adaptive Systems (CASs) with multiple, interdependent, and interacting elements are suited to deliver such interventions. This paper examines how the ED is organized to provide harm reduction and identifies facilitators and barriers to implementation in light of interactions between system elements. Methods: Using a case study design, we conducted interviews with Emergency Physicians (n = 5), Emergency Nurses (n = 10), and clinical leaders (n = 5). Nine organizational policy documents were also collected. Interview data were analysed using a Reflexive Thematic Analysis approach. Policy documents were analysed using a predetermined coding structure pertaining to staffing roles and responsibilities and the interrelationships therein for the delivery of opioid-specific harm reduction in the ED. The theory of CAS informed data analysis. Results: An array of system agents, including substance use specialist providers and non-specialist providers, interacted in ways that enable the provision of harm reduction interventions in the ED, including opioid agonist treatment, supervised consumption, and withdrawal management. However, limited access to specialist providers, when coupled with specialist control, non-specialist reliance, and concerns related to safety, created tensions in the system that hinder harm reduction provision with resulting implications for the delivery of care. Conclusions: To advance harm reduction implementation, there is a need for substance use specialist services that are congruent with the 24 h a day service delivery model of the ED, and for organizational policies that are attentive to discourses of specialized practice, hierarchical relations of power, and the dynamic regulatory landscape. Implementation efforts that take into consideration these perspectives have the potential to reduce harms experienced by people who use unregulated opioids, not only through overdose prevention and improving access to safer opioid alternatives, but also through supporting people to complete their unique care journeys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Spotting is an informal practice among people who use drugs (PWUD) where they witness other people using drugs and respond if an overdose occurs. During COVID-19 restrictions, remote spotting (e.g., using a telephone, video call, and/or a social media app) emerged to address physical distancing requirements and reduced access to harm reduction and/or sexually transmitted blood borne infection (STBBI's) prevention services. We explored spotting implementation issues from the perspectives of spotters and spottees. Methods: Research assistants with lived/living expertise of drug use used personal networks and word of mouth to recruit PWUD from Ontario and Nova Scotia who provided or used informal spotting. All participants completed a semi-structured, audio-recorded telephone interview about spotting service design, benefits, challenges, and recommendations. Recordings were transcribed and thematic analysis was used. Results: We interviewed 20 individuals between 08/2020–11/2020 who were involved in informal spotting. Spotting was provided on various platforms (e.g., telephone, video calls, and through texts) and locations (e.g. home, car), offered connection and community support, and addressed barriers to the use of supervised consumption sites (e.g., location, stigma, confidentiality, safety, availability, COVID-19 related closures). Spotting calls often began with setting an overdose response plan (i.e., when and who to call). Many participants noted that, due to the criminalization of drug use and fear of arrest, they preferred that roommates/friends/family members be called instead of emergency services in case of an overdose. Both spotters and spottees raised concerns about the timeliness of overdose response, particularly in remote and rural settings. Conclusion: Spotting is a novel addition to, but not replacement for, existing harm reduction services. To optimize overdose/COVID-19/STBBI's prevention services, additional supports (e.g., changes to Good Samaritan Laws) are needed. The criminalization of drug use may limit uptake of formal spotting services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]