The Nation's First Publicly Recognized Overdose Prevention Centers: Lessons Learned in New York City

Healthcare providers' knowledge and attitudes about overdose prevention sites in Colorado

BACKGROUND

Overdose prevention sites (OPS) are a harm reduction strategy that offer people who use drugs a variety of resources including but not limited to sterile supplies, linkage to healthcare resources, and intervention if an overdose occurs. OPS operate in over 120 countries and evidence has demonstrated they are an effective harm reduction strategy. Despite their success elsewhere, OPS remain federally illegal in the United States and thus there is limited research on their implementation and outcomes in the United States. This study aimed to identify Colorado healthcare providers' knowledge and attitudes about OPS and determine if there is a correlation between healthcare providers with more knowledge about OPS having a more positive attitude about OPS.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed to healthcare providers in Colorado. Responses were collected in early 2022 and recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Mean scores between 1 and 5 were calculated for each participant and analysis of variance methods were used to determine correlating demographic factors. A p value of ≤ 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance of all findings.

RESULTS

This study included 698 participants. A Pearson correlation analysis revealed a strong positive relationship (r = 0.76, p < 0.0001) between provider knowledge and attitudes about OPS. Emergency medicine providers scored the highest in mean knowledge and attitude scores in comparison to all other specialties. Respondents affiliated with a harm reduction center exhibited the highest mean knowledge and attitude scores. Mean knowledge and attitude scores generally rose with respondents' increasing encounters with people who inject drugs in a typical workday, except when reaching nine or more encounters, where a sharp decline occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the importance of education, exposure to harm reduction strategies, and inter-specialty collaboration in shaping healthcare providers' knowledge and attitudes about OPS. The positive correlation between providers' knowledge and attitudes about OPS suggests that educating healthcare providers on harm reduction strategies, specifically OPS, may lead to reduced stigmatization of OPS among healthcare professionals.

Strategies used to reduce harms associated with fentanyl exposure among rural people who use drugs: multi-site qualitative findings from the rural opioid initiative

AIM

Illicitly manufactured fentanyl and its analogs are the primary drivers of opioid overdose deaths in the United States (U.S.). People who use drugs may be exposed to fentanyl or its analogs intentionally or unintentionally. This study sought to identify strategies used by rural people who use drugs to reduce harms associated with unintentional fentanyl exposure.

METHODS

This analysis focused on 349 semi-structured qualitative interviews across 10 states and 58 rural counties in the U.S conducted between 2018 and 2020. Interview guides were collaboratively standardized across sites and included questions about drug use history (including drugs currently used, frequency of use, mode of administration) and questions specific to fentanyl. Deductive coding was used to code all data, then inductive coding of overdose and fentanyl codes was conducted by an interdisciplinary writing team.

RESULTS

Participants described being concerned that fentanyl had saturated the drug market, in both stimulant and opioid supplies. Participants utilized strategies including: (1) avoiding drugs that were perceived to contain fentanyl, (2) buying drugs from trusted sources, (3) using fentanyl test strips, 4) using small doses and non-injection routes, (5) using with other people, (6) tasting, smelling, and looking at drugs before use, and (7) carrying and using naloxone. Most people who used drugs used a combination of these strategies as there was an overwhelming fear of fatal overdose.

CONCLUSION

People who use drugs living in rural areas of the U.S. are aware that fentanyl is in their drug supply and use several strategies to prevent associated harms, including fatal overdose. Increasing access to harm reduction tools (e.g., fentanyl test strips, naloxone) and services (e.g., community drug checking, syringe services programs, overdose prevention centers) should be prioritized to address the polysubstance-involved overdose crisis. These efforts should target persons who use opioids and other drugs that may contain fentanyl.

Differences by race and ethnicity in drug use patterns, harm reduction practices and barriers to treatment among people who use drugs in Rhode Island

Background

As in much of the United States, there have been significant increases in overdose deaths among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic/Latinx populations in Rhode Island over the past decade. Given the shifting dynamics of the overdose epidemic, there is an urgent need for focused interventions that address the specific needs of diverse communities. This study explores differences in drug use patterns, harm reduction behaviors and types and barriers to treatment by race and ethnicity.

Methods

This study utilized baseline data from the Rhode Island Prescription and Illicit Drug Study (RAPIDS). We assessed sociodemographic characteristics, drug use patterns, harm reduction practices, treatment type, and barriers to treatment in a cross-sectional analysis of people who use drugs (PWUD), stratified by race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic other race, and Hispanic). Chi-square tests of independence and ANOVA tests were used to identify statistically significant differences by race and ethnicity.

Results

Among 509 participants, the median age was 43, and the majority were men (64%). Non-Hispanic Black participants reported significantly less regular use of unregulated opioids, such as heroin (10%) and fentanyl (12%), as compared to non-Hispanic white participants (39% and 33%, respectively). Non-Hispanic Black participants reported significantly less experience responding to overdoses: only 39% had ever administered naloxone and 34% had ever performed rescue breathing, as compared to 67% and 57% among non-Hispanic white participants, respectively. Despite significant differences in drug use patterns, there were few differences in harm reduction practices by race and ethnicity. Current treatment enrollment was highest among those who were non-Hispanic white (38%) and lowest among those who were non-Hispanic Black (7%).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that there are differences in overdose response experience and treatment exposure between non-Hispanic Black PWUD and those belonging to other racial and ethnic groups, indicating a need for enhanced investment in overdose response education, naloxone distribution and treatment access for non-Hispanic Black PWUD.

Overdose prevention centres as spaces of safety, trust and inclusion: A causal pathway based on a realist review

ISSUES

Overdose prevention centres (OPC) are non-residential spaces where people can use illicit drugs (that they have obtained elsewhere) in the presence of staff who can intervene to prevent and manage any overdoses that occur. Many reviews of OPCs exist but they do not explain how OPCs work.

APPROACH

We carried out a realist review, using the RAMESES reporting standards. We systematically searched for and then thematically analysed 391 documents that provide information on the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of OPCs.

KEY FINDINGS

Our retroductive analysis identified a causal pathway that highlights the feeling of safety - and the immediate outcome of not dying - as conditions of possibility for the people who use OPCs to build trust and experience social inclusion. The combination of safety, trust and social inclusion that is triggered by OPCs can - depending on the contexts in which they operate - generate other positive outcomes, which may include less risky drug use practices, reductions in blood borne viruses and injection-related infections and wounds, and access to housing. These outcomes are contingent on relevant contexts, including political and legal environments, which differ for women and people from racialised minorities.

CONCLUSIONS

OPCs can enable people who live with structural violence and vulnerability to develop feelings of safety and trust that help them stay alive and to build longer term trajectories of social inclusion, with potential to improve other aspects of their health and living conditions.

In Support of Overdose Prevention Centers: Position Statement of AMERSA, Inc (Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance Use and Addiction)

Given increasing rates of fatal overdoses in the United States and the rapidly changing drug supply, overdose prevention centers (OPCs; also known as safe consumption sites) have been identified as a vital, evidence-based strategy that provide people who use drugs (PWUD) the opportunity to use drugs safely and receive immediate, life-saving overdose support from trained personnel. In addition to providing a safe, supervised space to use drugs, OPCs can house further essential harm reduction drop-in services such as sterile supplies, social services, and medical care. There are established national and international data demonstrating the lifesaving services provided by OPCs, inspiring a groundswell of advocacy efforts to expand these programs in the United States. Thus, the Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance Use and Addiction (AMERSA) endorses OPCs, in addition to other harm reduction strategies that protect PWUD. Ultimately, it is imperative to increase access to OPCs across the United States and support key policy changes at the local, state, and federal levels that would facilitate urgent expansion.

Overcoming stigma: Community support for overdose prevention sites

Overdose prevention sites (OPS) are beginning to be examined for their feasibility of implementation in the United States to curb the fatality of overdoses. Support for these sites varies greatly and can impact local policy, implementation, and the long-term viability of such programs. This study examined two communications strategies - research and anecdotal evidence - and their effect on public support for an OPS. One group (n= 106) was presented with a summary of research evidence for the efficacy of implementing an OPS in their community. The other group (n= 109) received similar information framed as personal anecdotes from people who use drugs (PWUD), people who work with PWUD, and community members of neighborhoods with an OPS. Communicating the efficacy of OPS as research evidence was associated with increased support for implementation and a decreased belief that an OPS will attract crime. Lower stigma towards PWUD was also associated with increased support. However, neither condition was associated with changes in stigma towards PWUD. Jurisdictions implementing OPS should utilize research evidence in communicating the program proposal to the public. Further research is needed regarding best practices for reducing stigma towards PWUD and the subsequent support for the implementation of an OPS.

Estimated Number of Injection-Involved Overdose Deaths in US States From 2000 to 2020: Secondary Analysis of Surveillance Data

BACKGROUND

In the United States, both drug overdose mortality and injection-involved drug overdose mortality have increased nationally over the past 25 years. Despite documented geographic differences in overdose mortality and substances implicated in overdose mortality trends, injection-involved overdose mortality has not been summarized at a subnational level.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to estimate the annual number of injection-involved overdose deaths in each US state from 2000 to 2020.

METHODS

We conducted a stratified analysis that used data from drug treatment admissions (Treatment Episodes Data Set-Admissions; TEDS-A) and the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) to estimate state-specific percentages of reported drug overdose deaths that were injection-involved from 2000 to 2020. TEDS-A collects data on the route of administration and the type of substance used upon treatment admission. We used these data to calculate the percentage of reported injections for each drug type by demographic group (race or ethnicity, sex, and age group), year, and state. Additionally, using NVSS mortality data, the annual number of overdose deaths involving selected drug types was identified by the following specific multiple-cause-of-death codes: heroin or synthetic opioids other than methadone (T40.1, T40.4), natural or semisynthetic opioids and methadone (T40.2, T40.3), cocaine (T40.5), psychostimulants with abuse potential (T43.6), sedatives (T42.3, T42.4), and others (T36-T59.0). We used the probabilities of injection with the annual number of overdose deaths, by year, primary substance, and demographic groups to estimate the number of overdose deaths that were injection-involved.

RESULTS

In 2020, there were 91,071 overdose deaths among adults recorded in the United States, and 93.1% (84,753/91,071) occurred in the 46 jurisdictions that reported data to TEDS-A. Slightly less than half (38,253/84,753, 45.1%; 95% CI 41.1%-49.8%) of those overdose deaths were estimated to be injection-involved, translating to 38,253 (95% CI 34,839-42,181) injection-involved overdose deaths in 2020. There was large variation among states in the estimated injection-involved overdose death rate (median 14.72, range 5.45-31.77 per 100,000 people). The national injection-involved overdose death rate increased by 323% (95% CI 255%-391%) from 2010 (3.78, 95% CI 3.33-4.31) to 2020 (15.97, 95% CI 14.55-17.61). States in which the estimated injection-involved overdose death rate increased faster than the national average were disproportionately concentrated in the Northeast region.

CONCLUSIONS

Although overdose mortality and injection-involved overdose mortality have increased dramatically across the country, these trends have been more pronounced in some regions. A better understanding of state-level trends in injection-involved mortality can inform the prioritization of public health strategies that aim to reduce overdose mortality and prevent downstream consequences of injection drug use.

Radical hospitality: Innovative programming to build community and meet the needs of people who use drugs at a government-sanctioned overdose prevention site in San Francisco, California

BACKGROUND

The Tenderloin Center (TLC), a multi-service center where people could receive or be connected to basic needs, behavioral health care, housing, and medical services, was open in San Francisco for 46 weeks in 2022. Within a week of operation, services expanded to include an overdose prevention site (OPS), also known as safe consumption site. OPSs have operated internationally for over three decades, but government-sanctioned OPSs have only recently been implemented in the United States. We used ethnographic methods to understand the ways in which a sanctioned OPS, situated in a multi-service center, impacts the lives of people who use drugs (PWUD).

METHODS

We conducted participant observation and in-depth interviews June-December 2022. Extensive field notes and 39 in-depth interviews with 24 TLC guests and 15 TLC staff were analyzed using an inductive analysis approach. Interviewees were asked detailed questions about their experiences using and working at the TLC.

RESULTS

TLC guests and staff described an atmosphere where radical hospitality-welcoming guests with extraordinary warmth, generosity, and unconditional acceptance-was central to the culture. We found that the co-location of an OPS within a multi-service agency (1) allowed for the culture of radical hospitality to flourish, (2) yielded a convenient one-stop shop model, (3) created a space for community building, and (4) offered safety and respite to guests.

CONCLUSIONS

The co-location of an OPS within a multi-service drop-in center is an important example of how such an organization can build positive sociality among PWUD while protecting autonomy and reducing overdose mortality. Overdose response and reversal is an act of relational accountability in which friends, peers, and even strangers intervene to protect and revive one another. This powerful intervention was operationalized as an anti-oppressive, horizontal activity through radical hospitality with a built environment that allowed PWUD to be both social and safe.

Association between willingness to use an overdose prevention center and probation or parole status among people who use drugs in Rhode Island

BACKGROUND

Overdose prevention centers (OPCs) are being implemented in the United States as a strategy to reduce drug-related mortality and morbidity. Previous studies have suggested that people who use drugs (PWUD) with a history of criminal legal system (CLS) involvement (e.g. current probation/parole) are at greater risk of overdose but may also encounter significant barriers to OPC use. The objective of this study was to explore the association between willingness to use an OPC and probation/parole status in a sample of PWUD in Rhode Island.

METHODS

This study utilized data from the Rhode Island Prescription and Illicit Drug Study, which enrolled adult PWUD from August 2020 to February 2023. We used Pearson's chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to assess bivariate associations between willingness to use an OPC and probation/parole status (current/previous/never), as well as other sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics. In multivariable Poisson analyses, we examined the association between willingness to use an OPC and probation/parole status, adjusting for key sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 482 study participants, 67% were male, 56% identified as white, 20% identified as Hispanic/Latine, and the median age was 43 (IQR 35-53). Nearly a quarter (24%) had never been on probation/parole, 44% were not currently on probation/parole but had a lifetime history of probation and parole, and 32% were currently on probation/parole. Most participants (71%) reported willingness to use an OPC, and in both bivariate and multivariable analyses, willingness to use an OPC did not vary by probation/parole status. Crack cocaine use and lifetime non-fatal overdose were associated with greater willingness to use an OPC (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate high willingness to use OPC among PWUD in Rhode Island regardless of CLS-involvement. As OPCs begin to be implemented in Rhode Island, it will be imperative to engage people with CLS-involvement and to ensure access to the OPC and protection against re-incarceration due to potential barriers, such as police surveillance of OPCs.

"Make yourself un-NIMBY-able": stakeholder perspectives on strategies to mobilize public and political support for overdose prevention centers in the United States of America

BACKGROUND

Overdose prevention centers (OPCs), also known as supervised injection facilities and safe consumption sites, are evidenced-based interventions for preventing overdose deaths and drug-related morbidities. The pathways to legalizing OPCs in the USA have confronted multiple social, political, and legal obstacles. We conducted a multi-site, qualitative study to explore heterogeneities in these pathways in four jurisdictions, as well as to understand stakeholder perspectives on valuable strategies for galvanizing political and public support for OPCs.

METHODS

From July 2022 to February 2023, we conducted 17 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with OPC policymakers, service providers, advocates, and researchers from California, New York City, Philadelphia, and Rhode Island, where efforts have been undertaken to authorize OPCs. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified and compared contextually relevant, salient approaches for increasing support for OPCs.

RESULTS

Participants described several strategies clustering around five distinct domains: (1) embedding OPC advocacy into broader overdose prevention coalitions to shape policy dialogs; (2) building rapport with a plurality of powerbrokers (e.g., lawmakers, health departments, law enforcement) who could amplify the impact of OPC advocacy; (3) emphasizing specific benefits of OPCs to different audiences in different contexts; (4) leveraging relationships with frontline workers (e.g., emergency medicine and substance use treatment providers) to challenge OPC opposition, including 'NIMBY-ism,' and misinformation; and (5) prioritizing transparency in OPC decision-making to foster public trust.

CONCLUSION

While tailored to the specific socio-political context of each locality, multiple OPC advocacy strategies have been deployed to cultivate support for OPCs in the USA. Advocacy strategies that are multi-pronged, leverage partnerships with stakeholders at multiple levels, and tailor communications to different audiences and settings could yield the greatest impact in increasing support for, and diffusing opposition to, future OPC implementation.

Overdose Prevention Centers, Crime, and Disorder in New York City

Importance

The first government-sanctioned overdose prevention centers (OPCs) in the US opened in New York City (NYC) in November 2021 amid concerns that they may increase crime and disorder, representing a significant political challenge to OPCs.

Objective

To identify whether opening the first 2 government-sanctioned OPCs in the US was associated with changes in crime and disorder.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, difference-in-differences Poisson regression models were used to compare crime, residents' requests for assistance for emergencies and nuisance complaints, and police enforcement in the vicinity of NYC's 2 OPCs with those around 17 other syringe service programs that did not offer overdose prevention services from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Changes in the volume of crimes reported by the public or observed by police; arrests for drug possession and weapons; 911 calls and 311 calls regarding crime, public nuisances, and medical events; and summonses issued by police for criminal infractions in both the immediate vicinity of the sites (ie, a hexagonal area spanning about 6 city blocks) and their wider neighborhoods (ie, a tesselated 3-hexagon array spanning about 18 city blocks).

Results

No significant changes were detected in violent crimes or property crimes recorded by police, 911 calls for crime or medical incidents, or 311 calls regarding drug use or unsanitary conditions observed in the vicinity of the OPCs. There was a significant decline in low-level drug enforcement, as reflected by a reduction in arrests for drug possession near the OPCs of 82.7% (95% CI, -89.9% to -70.4%) and a reduction in their broader neighborhoods of 74.5% (95% CI, -87.0% to -50.0%). Significant declines in criminal court summonses issued in the immediate vicinity by 87.9% (95% CI, -91.9% to -81.9%) and in the neighborhoods around the OPCs by 59.7% (95% CI, -73.8% to -38.0%) were observed. Reductions in enforcement were consistent with the city government's support for the 2 OPCs, which may have resulted in a desire not to deter clients from using the sites by fear of arrest for drug possession.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this difference-in-differences cohort study, the first 2 government-sanctioned OPCs in the US were not associated with significant changes in measures of crime or disorder. These observations suggest the expansion of OPCs can be managed without negative crime or disorder outcomes.