A qualitative study of the perceived effects of blue lights in washrooms on people who use injection drugs

Navigating environmental constraints to injection preparation: the use of saliva and other alternatives to sterile water among unstably housed PWID in London

Background

The United Kingdom is experiencing an increase in drug-related deaths and serious bacterial infections among its most vulnerable citizens. Cuts to essential services, coupled with a growing homeless population, create a challenging environment to tackle this public health crisis. In this paper, we highlight an underexplored environmental constraint faced by people living and injecting drugs on the streets. Access to water for injection is restricted in the UK, due to legislative and financial barriers. Austerity measures, such as public toilet closures, further restrict the ability of people made homeless to access clean water and protect themselves from health harms.

Methods

We generated questionnaire (n = 455) and in-depth qualitative interview (n = 32) data with people who inject drugs in London for the Care and Prevent study. Participants provided detail on their life history; drug use, injecting and living environments; health conditions and care seeking practices.

Findings

A high proportion of the survey sample reported lifetime history of street homelessness (78%), bacterial infections (65%) and related hospitalisation (30%). Qualitative accounts highlight unsafe, potentially dangerous, injection practices in semi-public spaces. Multiple constraints to sourcing sterile water for injection preparation were reported. Alternatives to sterile water included puddle water, toilet cistern water, whisky, cola soda and saliva. Participants who injected heroin and crack cocaine together unanimously reported adding water at two stages during injection preparation: first, adding water as a vehicle for heroin (which was then heated); second, adding cold water to the heroin mixture prior to adding the crack cocaine. This new finding of a stage addition of solvent may represent an additional risk of infection.

Conclusion

Currently, harm reduction equipment and resources for safe injecting are not meeting the needs of people who inject drugs who are street homeless or unstably housed. Preparation of injections with non-sterile water sources could precipitate bacterial and fungal infections, particularly when used without the application of heat. It is crucial that water for injection, also skin cleaning, is made available for the unstably housed and that harm reduction messaging is tailored to speak to the everyday realities of people who prepare and inject drugs in public spaces.

Perspectives on supervised injection facilities among service industry employees in New York City: A qualitative exploration

BACKGROUND

Approximately 100 supervised injection facilities (SIFs) operate in 66 cities around the world to reduce overdose deaths, the spread of disease and public disorder, though none legally exist in the United States. Public bathrooms are among the most common public places for injection reported by people who inject drugs in New York City (NYC) and service industry employees (SIEs) inadvertently become first-responders when overdoses occur in business bathrooms. The goal of this study was to assess SIE acceptability of SIFs and the perceived effects that SIFs would have on them, their colleagues, their businesses and communities.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 SIEs recruited through convenience sampling throughout NYC. Participants were provided with peer-reviewed scientific evidence prior to discussing SIFs. Data were analysed using a hybrid deductive and inductive approach.

RESULTS

Most SIEs had encountered drug use (93%, n = 14/15) and syringes (73%, n = 11/15) in their business bathrooms and three had encountered unresponsive individuals. Nearly all workers (93%, n = 14/15) were supportive of SIFs and believed SIFs would reduce injection drug use in their business bathrooms. Participants also believed that 'not in my backyard' arguments from community boards may impede SIF operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Service industry employees are critical stakeholders due to their exposure to occupational health hazards related to public injection. Those interviewed were amenable to SIF operation as a form of occupational harm reduction and their experiences provide an important dimension to the political debate surrounding SIFs.

Drug use in business bathrooms: An exploratory study of manager encounters in New York City

BACKGROUND

Though public bathroom drug injection has been documented from the perspective of people who inject drugs, no research has explored the experiences of the business managers who oversee their business bathrooms and respond to drug use. These managers, by default, are first-responders in the event of a drug overdose and thus of intrinsic interest during the current epidemic of opioid-related overdoses in the United States. This exploratory study assists in elucidating the experiences that New York City business managers have with people who inject drugs, their paraphernalia, and their overdoses.

METHODS

A survey instrument was designed to collect data on manager encounters with drug use occurring in their business bathrooms. Recruitment was guided by convenience and purposive approaches.

RESULTS

More than half of managers interviewed (58%, n=50/86) encountered drug use in their business bathrooms, more than a third (34%) of these managers also found syringes, and the vast majority (90%) of managers had received no overdose recognition or naloxone training. Seven managers encountered unresponsive individuals who required emergency assistance.

CONCLUSION

The results from this study underscore the need for additional research on the experiences that community stakeholders have with public injection as well as educational outreach efforts among business managers. This research also suggests that there is need for a national dialogue about potential interventions, including expanded overdose recognition and naloxone training and supervised injection facilities (SIF)/drug consumption rooms (DCR), that could reduce public injection and its associated health risks.