Overdose prevention centres in the UK

Development, acceptability and feasibility of a personalised, behavioural intervention to prevent bacterial skin and soft tissue infections among people who inject drugs: a mixed-methods Person-Based Approach study

BACKGROUND

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) among people who inject drugs (PWID) are a public health concern. This study aimed to co-produce and assess the acceptability and feasibility of a behavioural intervention to prevent SSTI.

METHODS

The Person-Based Approach (PBA) was followed which involves: (i) collating and analysing evidence; (ii) developing guiding principles; (iii) a behavioural analysis; (iv) logic model development; and (v) designing and refining intervention materials. Co-production activities with target group representatives and key collaborators obtained feedback on the intervention which was used to refine its design and content. The intervention, harm reduction advice cards to support conversation between service provider and PWID and resources to support safer injecting practice, was piloted with 13 PWID by four service providers in Bristol and evaluated using a mixed-methods approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 PWID and four service providers. Questionnaires completed by all PWID recorded demographic characteristics, SSTI, drug use and treatment history. Interviews were analysed thematically and questionnaires were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Published literature highlighted structural barriers to safer injecting practices, such as access to hygienic injecting environments and injecting practices associated with SSTI included: limited handwashing/injection-site swabbing and use of too much acidifier to dissolve drugs. Co-production activities and the literature indicated vein care and minimisation of pain as PWID priorities. The importance of service provider-client relationships and non-stigmatising delivery was highlighted through the co-production work. Providing practical resources was identified as important to address environmental constraints to safer injecting practices. Most participants receiving the intervention were White British, male, had a history of SSTI and on average were 43.6 years old and had injected for 22.7 years. The intervention was well-received by PWID and service providers. Intervention content and materials given out to support harm reduction were viewed positively. The intervention appeared to support reflections on and intentions to change injecting behaviours, though barriers to safer injecting practice remained prominent.

CONCLUSIONS

The PBA ensured the intervention aligned to the priorities of PWID. It was viewed as acceptable and mostly feasible to PWID and service providers and has transferability promise. Further implementation alongside broader harm reduction interventions is needed.

Barriers and facilitators of naloxone and safe injection facility interventions to reduce opioid drug-related deaths: A qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioid drug-related deaths continue to be a significant public health concern in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI). While both regions have implemented naloxone to reduce drug related deaths, there remains a gap in the implementation of a supervised injection facility (SIF). This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing naloxone and a SIF to reduce opioid drug-related deaths in ROI and NI.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews (n=23) were conducted in ROI and NI with experts by experience (n=8), staff from low threshold services (n=9), and individuals involved in policy making (n= 6). Data were analyzed using coding reliability Thematic Analysis and were informed by the Risk Environmental Framework.

RESULTS

The findings illustrated that stigma within the media, health centers, and the community was a significant barrier to naloxone distribution and SIF implementation. Policing and community intimidation were reported to hinder naloxone carriage in both the ROI and NI, while threats of paramilitary violence towards people who use drugs were unique to NI. Municipal government delays and policy maker apathy were reported to hinder SIF implementation in the ROI. Participants suggested peer-to-peer naloxone delivery and amending legislation to facilitate non-prescription naloxone would increase naloxone uptake. Participants recommended using webinars, Town Halls, and a Citizens' Assembly as tools to advocate for SIF implementation.

CONCLUSION

Local and regional stigma reduction campaigns are needed in conjunction with policy changes to advance naloxone and a SIF. Tailoring stigma campaigns to incorporate the lived experience of people who use drugs, their family members, and the general community can aid in educating the public and change negative perceptions. This study highlights the need for ongoing efforts to reduce stigma and increase accessibility to evidence-based interventions to address opioid drug-related deaths in the ROI, NI, and internationally.

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

Overdose Prevention Sites (OPS) are low-barrier services where people may use illicit drugs under the monitoring of staff trained to provide life-saving care in the event of an overdose. In British Columbia (BC), Canada, OPS have been rapidly scaled-up as a community-based response to the overdose crisis and are staffed primarily by community members who are also people who use drugs (PWUD). While it is known that PWUD perform vital roles in OPS and other community-based overdose interventions, the expertise and expert knowledge of PWUD in this work remains under-theorised. This study draws on 20 months of ethnographic fieldwork in Vancouver, BC (July 2018 to March 2020), to explore how OPS responders who are PWUD developed and enacted expertise in overdose response. Ethnographic fieldwork focused on four OPS located in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside (DTES) and Downtown South neighbourhoods. Methods included 100 hours of observation in the sites and surrounding areas, three site-specific focus groups with OPS responders (n=20), and semi-structured interviews with OPS responders (n=14) and service users (n=23). Data was analysed with the aim of characterizing the knowledge underpinning responders' expertise, and the arrangements which allow for the formation and enactment of expertise. We found that OPS responders' expertise was grounded in experiential knowledge acquired through their positionality as PWUD and members of a broader community of activists engaged in mutual aid. Responders became skilled in overdose response through frequent practice and drew on their experiential and embodied knowledge of overdose to provide care that was both technically proficient and responsive to the broader needs of PWUD (e.g. protection from criminalization and stigmatizing treatment). Responders emphasized that the spatial arrangements of OPS supported the development of expertise by facilitating more specialized and comprehensive overdose care. OPS became sites of collective expertise around overdose management as responder teams developed shared understandings of overdose management, including processes for managing uncertainty, delegating team responsibilities, and sharing decision-making. This research re-situates theoretical understandings of expertise in community-based overdose response with implications for overdose prevention interventions. Findings underscore the experiential and embodied expertise of PWUD as community-based responders; the importance of supportive environments and team-based approaches for overdose response; and the benefits of community-driven training that extends beyond technical skills of overdose identification and naloxone administration.

Analysis of the UK Government's 10-Year Drugs Strategy-a resource for practitioners and policymakers

In 2021, during a drug-related death crisis in the UK, the Government published its ten-year drugs strategy. This article, written in collaboration with the Faculty of Public Health and the Association of Directors of Public Health, assesses whether this Strategy is evidence-based and consistent with international calls to promote public health approaches to drugs, which put 'people, health and human rights at the centre'. Elements of the Strategy are welcome, including the promise of significant funding for drug treatment services, the effects of which will depend on how it is utilized by services and local commissioners and whether it is sustained. However, unevidenced and harmful measures to deter drug use by means of punishment continue to be promoted, which will have deleterious impacts on people who use drugs. An effective public health approach to drugs should tackle population-level risk factors, which may predispose to harmful patterns of drug use, including adverse childhood experiences and socioeconomic deprivation, and institute evidence-based measures to mitigate drug-related harm. This would likely be more effective, and just, than the continuation of policies rooted in enforcement. A more dramatic re-orientation of UK drug policy than that offered by the Strategy is overdue.

'Why would we not want to keep everybody safe?' The views of family members of people who use drugs on the implementation of drug consumption rooms in Scotland

BACKGROUND

People who use drugs in Scotland are currently experiencing disproportionately high rates of drug-related deaths. Drug consumption rooms (DCRs) are harm reduction services that offer a safe, hygienic environment where pre-obtained drugs can be consumed under supervision. The aim of this research was to explore family member perspectives on DCR implementation in Scotland in order to inform national policy.

METHODS

Scotland-based family members of people who were currently or formerly using drugs were invited to take part in semi-structured interviews to share views on DCRs. An inclusive approach to 'family' was taken, and family members were recruited via local and national networks. A convenience sample of 13 family members were recruited and interviews conducted, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically using the Structured Framework Technique.

RESULTS

Family members demonstrated varying levels of understanding regarding the existence, role, and function of DCRs. While some expressed concern that DCRs would not prevent continued drug use, all participants were in favour of DCR implementation due to a belief that DCRs could reduce harm, including saving lives, and facilitate future recovery from drug use. Participants highlighted challenges faced by people who use drugs in accessing treatment/services that could meet their needs. They identified that accessible and welcoming DCRs led by trusting and non-judgemental staff could help to meet unmet needs, including signposting to other services. Family members viewed DCRs as safe environments and highlighted how the existence of DCRs could reduce the constant worry that they had of risk of harm to their loved ones. Finally, family members emphasised the challenge of stigma associated with drug use. They believed that introduction of DCRs would help to reduce stigma and provide a signal that people who use drugs deserve safety and care.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting the experience and views of family members makes a novel and valuable contribution to ongoing public debates surrounding DCRs. Their views can be used to inform the implementation of DCRs in Scotland but also relate well to the development of wider responses to drug-related harm and reduction of stigma experienced by people who use drugs in Scotland and beyond.

'Why would we not want to keep everybody safe?' The views of family members of people who use drugs on the implementation of drug consumption rooms in Scotland

BACKGROUND

People who use drugs in Scotland are currently experiencing disproportionately high rates of drug-related deaths. Drug consumption rooms (DCRs) are harm reduction services that offer a safe, hygienic environment where pre-obtained drugs can be consumed under supervision. The aim of this research was to explore family member perspectives on DCR implementation in Scotland in order to inform national policy.

METHODS

Scotland-based family members of people who were currently or formerly using drugs were invited to take part in semi-structured interviews to share views on DCRs. An inclusive approach to 'family' was taken, and family members were recruited via local and national networks. A convenience sample of 13 family members were recruited and interviews conducted, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically using the Structured Framework Technique.

RESULTS

Family members demonstrated varying levels of understanding regarding the existence, role, and function of DCRs. While some expressed concern that DCRs would not prevent continued drug use, all participants were in favour of DCR implementation due to a belief that DCRs could reduce harm, including saving lives, and facilitate future recovery from drug use. Participants highlighted challenges faced by people who use drugs in accessing treatment/services that could meet their needs. They identified that accessible and welcoming DCRs led by trusting and non-judgemental staff could help to meet unmet needs, including signposting to other services. Family members viewed DCRs as safe environments and highlighted how the existence of DCRs could reduce the constant worry that they had of risk of harm to their loved ones. Finally, family members emphasised the challenge of stigma associated with drug use. They believed that introduction of DCRs would help to reduce stigma and provide a signal that people who use drugs deserve safety and care.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting the experience and views of family members makes a novel and valuable contribution to ongoing public debates surrounding DCRs. Their views can be used to inform the implementation of DCRs in Scotland but also relate well to the development of wider responses to drug-related harm and reduction of stigma experienced by people who use drugs in Scotland and beyond.

The United Kingdom's first unsanctioned overdose prevention site; A proof-of-concept evaluation

BACKGROUND

The United Kingdom (UK) is currently experiencing a public health crisis of drug-related deaths. The government has rejected recommendations to open overdose prevention services, under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. To report on the operation and use of an unsanctioned overdose prevention service which operated in Glasgow city centre from September 2020 to May 2021.

METHODS

Description of the service, with analysis of data collected on its use.

RESULTS

The service operated for nine months without permission or funding from official sources. We report on the 894 injections supervised and recorded, and nine successful interventions with overdose events (seven opioid/two cocaine). Powder cocaine injection predominated either alone (60.6%) or with heroin (22.1%). Injection was mostly in the groin (68.0%) or arm (16.8%). More injections were recorded by males (70.1%). Around 65% of injection events featured an individual who was on a buprenorphine/methadone prescription.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible for an overdose prevention service to operate successfully in the UK without being shut down by the police or with negative consequences for the community. Future sites in the UK must tailor to the substances used by their potential clients, international trends (e.g. for fentanyl use) did not apply here. There is an urgent need and demand for these services in the UK to reduce harm, prevent and intervene during overdose, and provide vital psychosocial support for health and wellbeing in a highly marginalised population.