"With a PICC line, you never miss": The role of peripherally inserted central catheters in hospital care for people living with HIV/HCV who use drugs

PICC Your Poison: Resident Beliefs and Attitudes Regarding Discharge Parenteral Antibiotics for Patients Who Inject Drugs

Background

Serious injection-related infections (SIRIs) in people who inject drugs often lead to prolonged hospitalizations or premature discharges. This may be in part due to provider reluctance to place peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy in this population. Because internal medicine (IM) residents are often frontline providers in academic centers, understanding their perspectives on SIRI care is important to improve outcomes.

Methods

We surveyed IM residents in a large urban multicenter hospital system about SIRI care with a novel case-based survey that elicited preferences, comfort, experience, and stigma. The survey was developed using expert review, cognitive interviewing, and pilot testing. Results are reported with descriptive statistics and linear regression.

Results

Of 116 respondents (response rate 34%), most (73%) were uncomfortable discharging a patient with active substance use home with a PICC, but comfortable (87%) with discharge to postacute facilities. Many (∼40%) endorsed high levels of concern for PICC misuse or secondary line infections, but larger numbers cited concerns about home environment (50%) or loss to follow-up (68%). While overall rates were low, higher stigma was associated with more concerns around PICC use (r = -0.3, P = .002). A majority (58%) believed hospital policies against PICC use in SIRI may act as a barrier to discharge, and 74% felt initiation of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) would increase their comfort discharging with a PICC.

Conclusions

Most IM residents endorsed high levels of concern about PICC use for SIRI, related to patient outcomes and perceived institutional barriers, but identified MOUD as a mitigating factor.

"The machine doesn't judge": Counternarratives on surveillance among people accessing a safer opioid supply via biometric machines

People who use illegal drugs experience routine surveillance, including in healthcare and harm reduction settings. The MySafe Project - a safer supply pilot project that dispenses prescription opioids via a biometric vending machine - exists in the Canadian province of British Columbia. The machine scans a participant's palmprint and has a built-in camera that records every machine interaction. The aim of this paper is to understand participants' experiences of surveillance, privacy, and personal security when accessing this novel program. An integrative case study and grounded theory methodology was employed. Qualitative one-to-one interviews were conducted with 46 MySafe participants across three different program sites in Vancouver. We used a team-based approach to code interview transcripts and utilized directed and conventional content analyses for deductive and inductive analyses. While participants described negative experiences of surveillance in other public and harm reduction settings, they did not have concerns regarding cameras, collection of personal information, tracking, nor staff issues associated with MySafe. Similarly, while some participants had privacy concerns in other settings, very few privacy and confidentiality concerns were expressed regarding accessing the machine in front of others. Lastly, while some participants reported being targeted by others when accessing the machines, most participants described how cameras, staff, and machine locations helped ensure a sense of safety. Despite negative experiences of surveillance and privacy issues elsewhere, participants largely lacked concern regarding the MySafe program and machines. The machine-human interaction was characterized as different than some human-human interactions as the machine is completing tasks in a manner that is acceptable and comfortable to participants, leading to a social preference toward the machines in comparison to other surveilled means of accessing medications. These findings provide an opportunity to rethink how we conceptualize surveillance, medication access, and harm reduction programs targeting people who use drugs.

Between Care and Control: Examining Surveillance Practices in Harm Reduction

As harm reduction programs and services proliferate, people who use drugs (PWUD) are increasingly subjected to surveillance through the collection of their personal information, systematic observation, and other means. The data generated from these practices are frequently repurposed across various institutional sites for clinical, evaluative, epidemiological, and administrative uses. Rationales provided for increased surveillance include the more effective provision of care, service optimization, risk stratification, and efficiency in resource allocation. With this in mind, our reflective essay draws on empirical analysis of work within harm reduction services and movements to reflect critically on the impacts and implications of surveillance expansion. While we argue that many surveillance practices are not inherently problematic or harmful, the unchecked expansion of surveillance under a banner of health and harm reduction may contribute to decreased uptake of services, rationing and conditionalities tied to service access, the potential deepening of health disparities amongst some PWUD, and an overlay of health and criminal-legal systems. In this context, surveillance relies on the enlistment of a range of therapeutic actors and reflects the permeable boundary between care and control. We thus call for a broader critical dialogue within harm reduction on the problems and potential impacts posed by surveillance in service settings, the end to data sharing of health information with law enforcement and other criminal legal actors, and deference to the stated need among PWUD for meaningful anonymity when accessing harm reduction and health services.

"I know my body better than anyone else": a qualitative study of perspectives of people with lived experience on antimicrobial treatment decisions for injection drug use-associated infections

Background

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at risk for severe bacterial and fungal infections including skin and soft tissue infections, endocarditis, and osteomyelitis. PWID have high rates of self-directed discharge and are often not offered outpatient antimicrobial therapies, despite studies showing their efficacy and safety in PWID. This study fills a gap in knowledge of patient and community partner perspectives on treatment and discharge decision making for injection drug use (IDU)-associated infections.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 10) hospitalized with IDU-associated infections and community partners (n = 6) in the Portland, Maine region. Community partners include peer support workers at syringe services programs (SSPs) and outreach specialists working with PWID. We transcribed and thematically analyzed interviews to explore perspectives on three domains: perspectives on long-term hospitalization, outpatient treatment options, and patient involvement in decision making.

Results

Participants noted that stigma and inadequate pain management created poor hospitalization experiences that contributed to self-directed discharge. On the other hand, patients reported hospitalization provided opportunities to connect to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment and protect them from outside substance use triggers. Many patients expressed interest in outpatient antimicrobial treatment options conditional upon perceived efficacy of the treatment, perceived ability to complete treatment, and available resources and social support. Finally, both patients and community partners emphasized the importance of autonomy and inclusion in medical decision making. Although some participants acknowledged their SUD, withdrawal symptoms, or undertreated pain might interfere with decision making, they felt these medical conditions were not justification for health care professionals withholding treatment options. They recommended open communication to build trust and reduce harms.

Conclusion

Patients with IDU-associated infections desire autonomy, respect, and patient-centered care from healthcare workers, and may self-discharge when needs or preferences are not met. Involving patients in treatment decisions and offering outpatient antimicrobial options may result in better outcomes. However, patient involvement in decision making may be complicated by many contextual factors unique to each patient, suggesting a need for shared decision making to meet the needs of hospitalized patients with IDU-associated infections.

Self-injecting non-prescribed substances into vascular access devices: a case study of one health system's ongoing journey from clinical concern to practice and policy response

BACKGROUND

Overdose-associated deaths and morbidity related to substance use is a global public health emergency with devastating social and economic costs. Complications of substance use are most pronounced among people who inject drugs (PWID), particularly infections, resulting in increased risk of hospitalization. PWID often require intravenous access for medical treatments such as antibiotics; however, vascular access may be limited due to the impacts of long-term self-venipuncture. While vascular access devices including peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) allow reliable and sustained routes of administration for indicated therapies, the use of PICCs among PWID presents unique challenges. The incidence and risks associated with self-injecting non-prescribed substances into vascular access devices (SIVAD) is one such concern for which there is limited evidence and absence of formal practice guidance.

CASE PRESENTATION

We report the experience of a multidisciplinary team at a health organization in Vancouver, Canada, working to characterize the incidence, patient and healthcare provider perspectives, and overall impact of SIVAD. The case study of SIVAD begins with a patient's perspective, including patient rationale for SIVAD, understanding of risks and the varying responses given by healthcare providers following disclosure of SIVAD. Using the limited literature available on the subject, we summarize the intersection of SIVAD and substance use and outline known and anticipated health risks. The case study is further contextualized by experience from a Vancouver in-hospital Overdose Prevention Site (OPS), where 37% of all individual visits involve SIVAD. The case study concludes by describing the systematic process by which local clinical guidance for SIVAD harm reduction was developed with stakeholder engagement, medical ethics consultation, expert consensus guideline development and implementation with staff education and planned research evaluation.

CONCLUSION

SIVAD is encountered with enough frequency in an urban healthcare setting in Vancouver, Canada, to warrant an organizational approach. This case study aims to enhance appreciation of SIVAD as a common and complex clinical issue with anticipated health risks. The authors conclude that using a harm reduction lens for SIVAD policy and research can provide benefit to clinicians and patients by offering a clear and a consistent healthcare response to this common issue.

"They Just Assume That We're All Going to Do the Wrong Thing With It. It's Just Not True": Stakeholder Perspectives About Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in People Who Inject Drugs

Background

In the absence of adequate harm reduction opportunities, people who inject drugs (PWID) are at increased risk for serious infections. Infectious diseases guidelines recommend extended periods of intravenous antibiotic treatment through peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), but PWID are often deemed unsuitable for this treatment. We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups to understand the perspectives and opinions of patients and clinicians on the use of PICCs for PWID.

Methods

We approached patients and clinicians (doctors, nurses, PICC nurses, social workers, and case workers) involved in patient care at Tufts Medical Center (Boston, Massachusetts) between August 2019 and April 2020 for semi-structured interviews and focus groups.

Results

Eleven of 14 (79%) patients agreed to participate in an in-depth interview, and 5 role-specific clinician focus groups (1 group consisting of infectious diseases, internal medicine, and addiction psychiatry doctors, 2 separate groups of floor nurses, 1 group of PICC nurses, and 1 group of social workers) were completed. Emergent themes included the overall agreement that PICCs improve healthcare, patients' feelings that their stage of recovery from addiction was not taken into consideration, and clinicians' anecdotal negative experiences driving decisions on PICCs.

Conclusions

When analyzed together, the experiences of PWID and clinicians shed light on ways the healthcare system can improve the quality of care for PWID hospitalized for infections. Further research is needed to develop a system of person-centered care for PWID that meets the specific needs of patients and improves the relationship between them and the healthcare system.

Harm Reduction: Not Dirty Words Any More

Although many of the tenets of harm reduction have been around for centuries and more traditional harm reduction services such as syringe services programs have been in existence for decades, there has been a recent increase in interest and acceptance of harm reduction as an essential component of a public health approach to substance use. This article provides an overview of harm reduction and its application to alcohol, tobacco, and drug use. It discusses the importance of integrating harm reduction principles and services with traditional psychiatric, medical, and addiction treatment programs.

"I have such a hard time hitting myself, I thought it'd be easier": perspectives of hospitalized patients on injecting drugs into vascular access devices

Background

Hospital patients who use drugs may require prolonged parenteral antimicrobial therapy administered through a vascular access device (VAD). Clinicians’ concerns that patients may inject drugs into these devices are well documented. However, the perspectives of patients on VAD injecting are not well described, hindering the development of informed clinical guidance. This study was conducted to elicit inpatient perspectives on the practice of injecting drugs into VADs and to propose strategies to reduce associated harms.

Methods

Researchers conducted a focused ethnography and completed semi-structured interviews with 25 inpatients at a large tertiary hospital in Western Canada that experiences a high rate of drug-related presentations annually.

Results

A few participants reported injecting into their VAD at least once, and nearly all had heard of the practice. The primary reason for injecting into a VAD was easier venous access since many participants had experienced significant vein damage from injection drug use. Several participants recognized the risks associated with injecting into VADs, and either refrained from the practice or took steps to maintain their devices while using them to inject drugs. Others were uncertain how the devices functioned and were unaware of potential harms.

Conclusions

VADs are important for facilitating completion of parenteral antimicrobial therapy and for other medically necessary care. Prematurely discharging patients who inject into their VAD from hospital, or discontinuing or modifying therapy, results in inequitable access to health care for a structurally vulnerable patient population. Our findings demonstrate a need for healthcare provider education and non-stigmatizing clinical interventions to reduce potential harms associated with VAD injecting. Those interventions could include providing access to specialized pain and withdrawal management, opioid agonist treatment, and harm reduction services, including safer drug use education to reduce or prevent complications from injecting drugs into VADs.