Search

Issues: Drug consumptions rooms (DCR) and supervised injecting facilities (SIF) are expanding internationally. Previous reviews have not systematically addressed evaluation methodologies.Approach: Results from systematic searches of scientific databases in English until June 2017 were coded for paper type, country and year of publication. For evaluation papers, study outcome, methodology/study design and main indicators of DCR/SIF 'exposure' were recorded.Key Findings: Two hundred and nineteen eligible peer-reviewed papers were published since 1999: the majority from Canada (n = 117 papers), Europe (n = 36) and Australia (n = 32). Fifty-six papers reported evaluation outcomes. Ecological study designs (n = 10) were used to assess the impact on overdose, public nuisance and crime; modelling techniques (n = 6) estimated impact on blood-borne diseases, overdose deaths and costs. Papers using individual-level data included four prospective cohorts (n = 28), cross-sectional surveys (n = 7) and service records (n = 5). Individual-level data were used to assess safer injecting practice, uptake into health and social services and all the other above outcomes except for impact on crime and costs. Four different indicators of DCR/SIF attendance were used to measure service 'exposure'.Implications: Research around DCRs/SIFs has used ecological, modelling, cross-sectional and cohort study designs. Further research could involve systematic inclusion of a control group of people who are eligible but do not access SIFs, validation of self-reported proportion of injections at SIFs or a stepped-wedge or a cluster trial comparing localities.Conclusions: Methodologies appropriate for DCR/SIF evaluation have been established and can be readily replicated from the existing literature. Research on operational aspects, implementation and transferability is also warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) are effective in reducing the harms associated with injecting drug use among their clientele, but do SIFs ease the burden on ambulance services of attending to overdoses in the community? This study addresses this question, which is yet to be answered, in the growing body of international evidence supporting SIFs efficacy. Design Ecological study of patterns in ambulance attendances at opioid-related overdoses, before and after the opening of a SIF in Sydney, Australia. Setting A SIF opened as a pilot in Sydney's ‘red light’ district with the aim of accommodating a high throughput of injecting drug users (IDUs) for supervised injecting episodes, recovery and the management of overdoses. Measurements A total of 20 409 ambulance attendances at opioid-related overdoses before and after the opening of the Sydney SIF. Average monthly ambulance attendances at suspected opioid-related overdoses, before (36 months) and after (60 months) the opening of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC), in the vicinity of the centre and in the rest of New South Wales (NSW). Results The burden on ambulance services of attending to opioid-related overdoses declined significantly in the vicinity of the Sydney SIF after it opened, compared to the rest of NSW. This effect was greatest during operating hours and in the immediate MSIC area, suggesting that SIFs may be most effective in reducing the impact of opioid-related overdose in their immediate vicinity. Conclusions By providing environments in which IDUs receive supervised injection and overdose management and education SIF can reduce the demand for ambulance services, thereby freeing them to attend other medical emergencies within the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The process of drug injection may give rise to vascular and soft tissue injuries and infections. The social and physical environments in which drugs are injected play a significant role in these and other morbidities. Supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) seek to address such issues associated with public injecting drug use. Aims: Estimate lifetime prevalence of injecting-related problems, injury and disease and explore the socio-demographic and behavioral characteristics associated with the more serious complications. Design, Setting, Participants: Self-report data from 9552 injecting drug users (IDUs) registering to use the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC). Findings: Lifetime history of either injecting-related problems (IRP) or injecting-related injury and disease (IRID) was reported by 29% of the 9552 IDUs; 26% (n =2469) reported ever experiencing IRP and 10% (n =972) reported IRID. Prevalence of IRP included difficulties finding a vein (18%), prominent scarring or bruising (14%) and swelling of hands or feet (7%). Prevalence of IRID included abscesses or skin infection (6%), thrombosis (4%), septicaemia (2%) and endocarditis (1%). Females, those who mainly injected drugs other than heroin, and those who reported a history of drug treatment, drug overdose, and/or sex work, were more likely to report lifetime IRID. Frequency and duration of injecting, recent public injecting, and sharing of needles and/or syringes were also independently associated with IRID. Conclusions: IRPs and IRIDs were common. Findings support the imperative for education and prevention activities to reduce the severity and burden of these preventable injecting outcomes. Through provision of hygienic environments and advice on venous access, safer injecting techniques and wound care, SIFs have the potential to address a number of risk factors for IRID. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]