Support of supervised injection facilities by emergency physicians in Canada

Feasibility, acceptability, concerns, and challenges of implementing supervised injection services at a specialty HIV hospital in Toronto, Canada: perspectives of people living with HIV

BACKGROUND

Substance use significantly impacts health and healthcare of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV), especially their ability to remain in hospital following admission. Supervised injection services (SIS) reduce overdoses and drug-related harms, but are not often provided within hospitals/outpatient programs. Leading us to question, what are PLHIV's perceptions of hospital-based SIS?

METHODS

This mixed-methods study explored feasibility and acceptability of implementing SIS at Casey House, a Toronto-based specialty HIV hospital, from the perspective of its in/outpatient clients. We conducted a survey, examining clients' (n = 92) demand for, and acceptability of, hospital-based SIS. Following this, we hosted two focus groups (n = 14) and one-on-one interviews (n = 8) with clients which explored benefits/drawbacks of in-hospital SIS, wherein participants experienced guided tours of a demonstration SIS space and/or presentations of evidence about impacts of SIS. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Among survey participants, 76.1% (n = 70) identified as cis-male and over half (n = 49;54.4%) had been a hospital client for 2 years or less. Nearly half (48.8%) knew about clients injecting in/near Casey House, while 23.6% witnessed it. Survey participants were more supportive of SIS for inpatients (76.1%) than for outpatients (68.5%); most (74.7%) reported SIS implementation would not impact their level of service use at Casey House, while some predicted coming more often (16.1%) and others less often (9.2%). Most focus group/interview participants, believed SIS would enhance safety by reducing health harms (e.g. overdose), increasing transparency between clients and clinicians about substance use, and helping retain clients in care. Debate arose about who (e.g., in/outpatients vs. non-clients) should have access to hospital-based SIS and how implementation may shift organizational priorities/resources away from services not specific to drug use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed widespread support of, and need for, hospital-based SIS among client stakeholders; however, attempts to reduce negative impacts on non-drug using clients need to be considered in the balance of implementation plans. Given the increased risks of morbidity and mortality for PLHIV who inject drugs as well as the problems in retaining them in care in a hospital setting, SIS is a key component of improving care for this marginalized group.

Community perspectives on supervised consumption sites: Insights from four U.S. counties deeply affected by opioids

BACKGROUND

To address the overdose crisis in the United States, expert groups have been nearly unanimous in calls for increasing access to evidence-based treatment and overdose reversal drugs. In some places there have also been calls for implementing supervised consumption sites (SCSs). Some cities-primarily in coastal urban areas-have explored the feasibility and acceptability of introducing them. However, the perspectives of community stakeholders from more inland and rural areas that have also been hard hit by opioids are largely missing from the literature.

METHODS

To examine community attitudes about implementing SCSs for people who use opioids (PWUO) in areas with acute opioid problems, the research team conducted in-depth interviews and focus groups in four counties: Ashtabula and Cuyahoga Counties in Ohio, and Carroll and Hillsborough Counties in New Hampshire, two states with high rates of opioid overdose. Participants were policy, treatment, and criminal justice professionals, frontline harm reduction and service providers, and PWUO.

RESULTS

Key informants noted benefits to SCSs, but also perceived potential drawbacks such as that they may enable opioid use, and potential practical barriers, including lack of desire among PWUO to travel to an SCS after purchasing opioids and fear of arrest. Key informants generally believed their communities likely would not currently accept SCSs due to cultural, resource, and practical barriers. They viewed publication of evidence on SCSs and community education as essential for fostering acceptance.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite cultural and other barriers, implementation of SCSs may be more feasible in urban communities with existing (and perhaps more long-standing) harm reduction programs, greater treatment resources, and adequate transportation, particularly if there is strong evidence to support them.

A systematic review of stakeholder perceptions of supervised injection facilities

INTRODUCTION

Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) have been developed to address the public health burden associated with substance use. While these facilities have been associated with a number of positive outcomes, stakeholder opinion (the opinions of those potentially affected by these facilities) is likely to influence their future development. This systematic review aims to answer the question, "how do stakeholders perceive SIFs?"

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles were located through nine academic databases, by searching for grey literature, by contacting health departments in countries where SIFs have been implemented, by searching articles that cited included articles, and by searching the reference lists of included articles. Two reviewers screened all articles. Data was double-extracted and quality appraised. All extracted perceptions were analyzed by two coders.

RESULTS

Forty-seven articles were synthesized. Key themes included (1) benefits of SIFs, such as the increased safety of people who use drugs (PWUD) and the education that was provided at these facilities; (2) concerns regarding SIFs, such as the location of these facilities and existing rules and regulations; and (3) suggestions for SIFs, such as changing restrictions and regulations. Perceptions often fluctuated between stakeholders with first-hand experience of SIFs (e.g. staff and PWUD) and stakeholders not involved in the operation of SIFs (e.g. the general public).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review illustrate how perceptions vary and align across different types of SIFs. Going forward, it will be important to draw on these insights to facilitate a more informed discussion on the implementation and continuation of these facilities.

Opinion of health professionals and drug users before the forthcoming opening of the first drug consumption room in Paris: a quantitative cross-sectional study

Background

On the brink of the opening of the first French drug consumption room in Paris, the general opinion of the local involved health care professionals and drug users was not known. The objective of this study was to determine their expectations and to search for influencing factors.

Method

We carried out a quantitative cross-sectional study. A multiple choice questionnaire was proposed to the surrounding willing general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists, to the emergency doctors of Lariboisière hospital, and to the professionals of the harm reduction facilities and their drug users (PWUD). For each question, there was a choice between seven answers, from “− 3” (very negative impact) to “+ 3” (very positive impact). The influence of the characteristics of each group on its mean answers was explored by Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman’s tests.

Results

The median expectations among the groups of responding GPs (N = 62), other health care professionals (N = 82), and PWUD (N = 57) were mainly positive. They thought that the drug consumption room (DCR) would improve the health of PWUD, reduce their at-risk behaviors, would not increase drug use or drug dealing in the neighborhood, and would reduce nuisance in the public space. Only the group of GPs expressed that the DCR could decrease the quietness of the neighborhood, and only the group of PWUD had higher expectations that the DCR would decrease the number of arrests and the number of violent behavior. GPs’ expectations were significantly better in terms of health improvement of PWUD and reducing their precariousness if they had a previous experience in addiction medicine (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.004 and p = 0.019), with a longer practice (Spearman’s rho, p = 0.021 and p = 0.009), and if they were currently prescribing opioid substitution treatments (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.030 and p = 0.002).

Among non-GPs, those who were working in addiction medicine centers had significantly better expectations than pharmacists, and the professionals of the local emergency department had intermediate expectations.

Conclusions

Health care professionals and drug users had a positive opinion of the to-be-created Parisian drug consumption room. Experience in addiction medicine influenced positively health professionals’ expectations.