Search

The article presents the discussion on group of public health researchers and practitioners. Topics include aware of the devastating impact the drug toxicity crisis has had across North America and the challenges faced by health care providers; and drug toxicity crisis is impacting the spectrum of PWUD across demographics and socioeconomic status.

Community-based models of cannabis cultivation, distribution, and consumption—such as cannabis clubs—have been documented across Europe, North America, South America, and New Zealand since the 1990s. For the most part, these models have a history of operating outside existing legislation and regulations. Jurisdictions that have legalized cannabis have approached community-based models in opposite ways (eliminate vs. regulate). Canada legalizing cannabis has resulted in more stringent enforcement and concerted efforts to close these models despite documented health and social benefits. This paper presents a case study of the Victoria Cannabis Buyers Club (VCBC) and its consumption space—The Box. We conducted a survey of VCBC members to explore four domains: demographics, cannabis consumption, access to and use of The Box, and the impact of its temporary closure due to COVID-19. From the survey data (n = 104), descriptive statistics were generated and three conceptual avenues were identified. The majority of respondents were 40 years old and older and identified as White (European descent) cisgendered men and women. The majority reported an income of $40,000 or less and a housing status that prevented them from smoking. Close to 75% of our sample consumed cannabis multidaily for therapeutic purposes primarily, but also for a mix of recreation, social, spiritual, and traditional healing purposes. Smoking was the preferred mode of consumption. Respondents accessed The Box daily or weekly. Reasons and benefits for using The Box fell into three categories: public health, harm reduction, and wellness perspectives. Conceptually, we found that The Box acted as a therapeutic space and offered a much-needed consumption space for smokers. We also identified a need to unpack the concept of safety. Overall, the survey reinforces the need for an equity-informed approach to community-based models and cannabis consumption spaces in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

• Public experiences of surveillance and control are recreated in SROs. • The liminality of SROs between public and private space structure experiences of privacy and safety. • Using drug alone can be both a way to claim privacy and a survival strategy within the context of SRO housing. • Interventions accounting for broader contextual factors that render using alone as instrumental to survival are needed to reduce vulnerability to overdose and other harms. Across North America most overdose deaths occur in housing, largely due to individuals using drugs alone. In cities, fatalities are disproportionately concentrated in low-income housing, including single room occupancy (SRO) housing. While research has highlighted how SROs operate as risk environments for various poor outcomes, there has been little attention to specific drug use practices (i.e., using alone) associated with overdose vulnerability in these spaces. This study explores how environmental contexts of SROs shape overdose risks, with specific attention to practices of using drugs alone. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 people who use drugs (PWUD) living in Vancouver SROs. Interviews covered topics such as social-structural environments of housing, drug use practices, and housing-based harm reduction. Thematic analysis drew on the intersectional risk environment framework. Narratives positioned SROs as extensions of public space, with similar expectations of risks and behaviours as in public spaces. For some participants, using alone in their room was characterized as a practice in claiming privacy within the context of a public existence. Participants highlighted how certain features of SRO's social-structural environments were routinely leveraged against them (e.g., security cameras, staff surveillance), suggesting using alone as a tactic to minimize risks of hyper-surveillance and punitive policies. Further, participants discussed using alone as "safer," describing how this practice mitigated place-based risks of social-structural harms (e.g., violence, criminalization) in ways that eclipsed overdose risk. Using drugs alone may be understood as a spatial negotiation of vulnerability to diverse harms produced by environmental contexts of SROs. Interventions accounting for broader contextual factors (e.g., improvements housing quality/quantity, providing a safer supply of drugs) that render using alone as instrumental to survival, and that reduce the implicit threat of punishment from intensive surveillance and control practices are critical to reduce vulnerability to overdose and other harms. [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]

The article presents a commentary in response to the article "Our Life Depends on This Drug: Competence, Inequity, and Voluntary Consent in Clinical Trials on Supervised Injectable Opioid Assisted Treatment" (siOAT). Topics discussed include concern about the ethics of conducting further trials on the efficacy of siOAT, the need for siOAT as a health care intervention in the context of the North American wide opioid overdose epidemic and a different research direction for siOAT.

Objectives: To explore the similarities and differences of organization-based and informal spotting (remote supervision of substance use) from the perspectives of spotters and spottees across Canada.Methods: Spotters and spottees who spot informally and for organizations were recruited across Ontario and Nova Scotia. We interviewed 20 informal and 10 organization-based participants by phone using semi-structured interviews between 08/2020 and 11/2020. Participants were asked about each methods benefits and limitations. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically.Results: Benefits of informal spotting included its ability to strengthen social connections and foster autonomy in overdose response planning. The lack of support for informal spotters created stress and burnout. Organization-based spotters enjoyed the spotting training and support provided. However, regulations surrounding having to call ambulance in overdose events deterred many people from wanting to work for or call these services.Conclusions: Both organization-based and informal spotting have a role in mitigating harms associated with the overdose crisis. Moving forward, further research is needed on how to optimize these services for all people who use drugs in varying jurisdictions internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People who use drugs (PWUD), and especially those who inject drugs, are at increased risk of acquiring bloodborne infections (e.g., HIV and HCV), experiencing drug-related harms (e.g., abscesses and overdose), and being hospitalized and requiring inpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy delivered through a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC). The use of PICC lines with PWUD is understood to be a source of tension in hospital settings but has not been well researched. Drawing on theoretical and analytic insights from "new materialism," we consider the assemblage of sociomaterial elements that inform the use of PICCs.Methods: This paper draws on n = 50 interviews conducted across two related qualitative research projects within a program of research about the impact of substance use on hospital admissions from the perspective of healthcare providers (HCPs) and people living with HIV/HCV who use drugs. This paper focuses on data about PICC lines collected in both studies.Results: The decision to provide, maintain, or remove a PICC is based on a complex assemblage of factors (e.g., infections, bodies, drugs, memories, relations, spaces, temporalities, and contingencies) beyond whether parenteral intravenous antibiotic therapy is clinically indicated. HCPs expressed concerns about the risk posed by past, current, and future drug use, and contact with non-clinical spaces (e.g., patient's homes and the surrounding community), with some opting for second-line treatments and removing PICCs. The majority of PWUD described being subjected to threats of discharge and increased monitoring despite being too ill to use their PICC lines during past hospital admissions. A subset of PWUD reported using their PICC lines to inject drugs as a harm reduction strategy, and a subset of HCPs reported providing harm reduction-centred care.Conclusion: Our analysis has implications for theorizing the role of PICC lines in the care of PWUD and identifies practical guidance for engaging them in productive and non-judgemental discussions about the risks of injecting into a PICC line, how to do it safely, and about medically supported alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]