(Re)situating expertise in community-based overdose response: Insights from an ethnographic study of overdose prevention sites (OPS) in Vancouver, Canada

"All You Can Do is What You Know to Do": Naloxone Knowledge and Uncertainty Among People Who Use Drugs in Maryland amid a Volatile Drug Market

BACKGROUND

Community-based distribution of naloxone has continued to serve as an important strategy in combatting the U.S. opioid overdose crisis. People who use drugs are first responders in this crisis, administering and disseminating knowledge about naloxone among their social networks. However, it is unclear how knowledge of naloxone evolves over time and across individuals, especially amid a volatile, unregulated drug market.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted 22 qualitative interviews with people who use drugs in rural, suburban, and urban regions of Maryland. Interviews focused on respondents' experiences witnessing and experiencing overdose, reversing overdoses with naloxone, and sources of uncertainty in overdose response.

RESULTS

Participants demonstrated high willingness and capacity to respond to overdose using naloxone. However, limited technical knowledge about naloxone contributed to riskier overdose reversal strategies, especially among individuals who had not received formal training. Non-naloxone reversal strategies, such as rescue breathing, were not widely used by participants. Finally, perceived volatility within local drug markets, specifically fentanyl analogues and xylazine, undermined participants' confidence in the effectiveness of naloxone.

CONCLUSION

People who use drugs serve an important role in community-based overdose reversal. Leveraging their experiential knowledge of overdose with technical knowledge of naloxone is foundational to effective community-based naloxone dissemination. Harm reduction programs should ensure that educational materials describe technical aspects of overdose response in ways that are intuitive to the experiences of people who use drugs, as well as ensure materials are responsive to an evolving drug supply.

Four decades of overdose prevention centres: lessons for the future from a realist review

BACKGROUND

Overdose prevention centres (OPCs) are spaces where people can consume previously obtained illicit drugs under the supervision of staff who can intervene to prevent and manage overdose. They have been provided in Europe and elsewhere for nearly 40 years, initially in response to the epidemic of HIV/AIDS. We can learn from their operation history to inform future developments in harm reduction services.

METHODS

We carried out a realist review of 391 documents, reported according to the RAMESES I guidelines, and carried out realist synthesis of these documents.

RESULTS

We present a full realist programme theory of OPCs, with a diagrammatic logic model, of how the contexts and mechanisms of OPCs combine to produce various outcomes for service users and their communities in different settings. Three specific causal pathways were evidenced through which OPCs produce their outcomes for particular groups in specific contexts of housing status, gender identity and ethnicity, and local drug markets, with frequency of use, legal and political contexts, and stigma as overlapping contextual factors. Key OPC interventions include the provision of a safe and hygienic consumption space, safe consumption education, timely overdose response, and protection from drug scene and gender-based violence. These can trigger the underlying mechanisms of safety, trust, social inclusion, engagement, autonomy, and empowerment when supported with health care and other services, including detoxification and opioid agonist treatment. The combinations of these contexts and mechanisms create important outcomes for individual service users, for the communities they live in, and for wider society. We also describe causal pathways that can lead to unintended, adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This review provides useful information for policy makers, practitioners, and researchers on how to implement and evaluate OPCs in future to maximise their benefits; an important task in the context of the ongoing public health crises of drug poisoning deaths in North America and the UK, and the possibility of increasing deaths from synthetic opioids in Europe and elsewhere.

The implementation of safer drug consumption facilities in Scotland: a mixed methods needs assessment and feasibility study for the city of Edinburgh

BACKGROUND

Scotland currently has amongst the highest rates of drug-related deaths in Europe, leading to increased advocacy for safer drug consumption facilities (SDCFs) to be piloted in the country. In response to concerns about drug-related harms in Edinburgh, elected officials have considered introducing SDCFs in the city. This paper presents key findings from a feasibility study commissioned by City of Edinburgh Council to support these deliberations.

METHODS

Using a multi-method needs assessment approach, we carried out a spatial and temporal analysis of drug-related data in Edinburgh including health, mortality, consumption, crime and service provision indicators; and 48 interviews including 22 people with lived/living experience (PWLE) of drug use in the city, five family members affected by drug-related harms, and 21 professional stakeholders likely to be involved in commissioning or delivering SDCFs. Data were collected using a convergent parallel design. We carried out a descriptive analysis of quantitative date and a thematic analysis of qualitative data. Quantitative data provides an overview of the local context in terms of recorded harms, service provision and consumption patterns as reported in prior surveys. Qualitative PWLE and families data captures the lived experiences of people who use drugs, and affected loved ones, within that local context, including perceived consumption trends, views on the practicality of SDCF provision, and hopes and anxieties regarding potential service provision. Professional stakeholders data provides insights into how people responsible for strategic planning and service delivery view the potential role of SDCF provision within the context described in the quantitative data.

RESULTS

In Edinburgh, drug-related harms and consumption patterns are dispersed across multiple locations, with some areas of higher concentration. Reported levels of opioid use, illicit benzodiazepine use and cocaine injecting are high. Qualitative interviews revealed strong support for the provision of SDCFs, and a preference for services that include peer delivery. However, PWLE also expressed concerns regarding safety and security, and professional stakeholders remained uncertain as to the prioritisation of facilities and possible opportunity costs in the face of restricted budgets.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong case for the provision of SDCFs in Edinburgh. However, service design needs to reflect spatial distributions of consumption and harm, patterns of consumption by drug type, and expressed preferences for both informality and security among potential service users. Models of SDCF provision used elsewhere in Scotland would therefore need to be adapted to reflect such considerations. These findings may apply more broadly to potential SDCF provision in the UK and internationally, given changing patterns of use and harm.

Beyond the 5-year recovery mark: Perspectives of researchers with lived and living experience on public engagement and discourse

There has been growing attention toward including people with lived and living experience (PWLLE) with substance use, substance use disorders, and recovery in public-facing activities. The goals of including PWLLE in sharing their perspectives often include demonstrating that recovery is possible, destigmatizing and humanizing people who have substance use experiences, and leveraging their lived experience to illuminate a particular topic or issue. Recently, the National Council for Mental Wellbeing issued a set of guidelines entitled, "Protecting Individuals with Lived Experience in Public Disclosure," which included a "Lived Experience Safeguard Scale." We offer the present commentary to bolster some of the ideas presented by the Council and to articulate suggested changes to this guidance, with the goal of reducing unintentional gatekeeping and stigma. Specifically, we offer that there are numerous problems with the recommendation to only invite people who have "five or more years of sustained recovery" to contribute to public discourse. The idea of perceived stability after five years of abstinence is not new to us or the field. We suggest that this idea excludes people who have experienced the present rapidly changing substance use landscape, people who have briefly returned to use, some young people, and people with living experience who also can valuably contribute to public discourse. We offer alternative guidelines to the National Council for Mental Wellbeing and others seeking to promote practices that are inclusive to the diversity of PWLLE.

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.

Evaluating oxygen monitoring and administration during overdose responses at a sanctioned overdose prevention site in San Francisco, California: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Overdose prevention sites (OPSs) are spaces where individuals can use pre-obtained drugs and trained staff can immediately intervene in the event of an overdose. While some OPSs use a combination of naloxone and oxygen to reverse overdoses, little is known about oxygen as a complementary tool to naloxone in OPS settings. We conducted a mixed methods study to assess the role of oxygen provision at a locally sanctioned OPS in San Francisco, California.

METHODS

We used descriptive statistics to quantify number and type of overdose interventions delivered in 46 weeks of OPS operation in 2022. We used qualitative data from OPS staff interviews to evaluate experiences using oxygen during overdose responses. Interviews were coded and thematically analyzed to identify themes related to oxygen impact on overdose response.

RESULTS

OPS staff were successful in reversing 100% of overdoses (n = 333) during 46 weeks of operation. Oxygen became available 18 weeks after opening. After oxygen became available (n = 248 overdose incidents), nearly all involved oxygen (91.5%), with more than half involving both oxygen and naloxone (59.3%). Overdoses involving naloxone decreased from 98% to 66%, though average number of overdoses concomitantly increased from 5 to 9 per week. Interviews revealed that oxygen improved overdose response experiences for OPS participants and staff. OPS EMTs were leaders of delivering and refining the overdose response protocol and trained other staff. Challenges included strained relationships with city emergency response systems due to protocol requiring 911 calls after all naloxone administrations, inconsistent supplies, and lack of sufficient staffing causing people to work long shifts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the OPS operated temporarily, it offered important insights. Ensuring consistent oxygen supplies, staffing, and removing 911 call requirements after every naloxone administration could improve resource management. These recommendations may enable success for future OPS in San Francisco and elsewhere.