Safer opioid supply: qualitative program evaluation

Clinicians' Perspectives and an Ethical Analysis of Safer Supply Opioid Prescribing

In British Columbia, Canada, many physicians providing care to individuals with high-risk opioid use disorder adopted safer supply (SS) opioid prescribing in the spring of 2020 with the goal of facilitating public health measures for COVID-19. This prescribing practice continued after measures were lifted. This study aimed to explore prescribers' perspectives following several years of local experience in prescribing SS opioids, primarily in the form of hydromorphone tablets, and to apply ethical concepts to explore current challenges and ongoing sources of provider distress. Addiction medicine SS prescribers participated in individual or small group semi-structured interviews. Each interview was transcribed and analysed for recurrent themes. Themes were then integrated into a narrative ethics discussion. Eleven addiction medicine physicians practicing in various settings within Vancouver participated in this study. Six themes were identified: clinical assessment, clinician distress, gaps in care, models of safer supply, research, and special populations. Ethical dilemmas in prescribing SS are identified and explored through a discussion of biomedical ethics principles and the physician role.

A qualitative evaluation of a fentanyl patch safer supply program in Vancouver, Canada

BACKGROUND

The ongoing overdose crisis in Canada has prompted efforts to increase access to a "safer supply" of prescribed alternatives to the unregulated drug supply. While safer supply programs predominantly distribute hydromorphone tablets, the Safer Alternatives for Emergency Response (SAFER) program in Vancouver, Canada offers a range of prescribed alternatives, including fentanyl patches. However, little is known about the effectiveness of fentanyl patches as safer supply. Drawing on the perspectives and experiences of program participants, we sought to qualitatively evaluate the effectiveness of the SAFER fentanyl patch program in meeting its intended aims, including reducing risk of overdose by decreasing reliance on the unregulated drug supply.

METHODS

As part of a larger mixed-methods evaluation of SAFER, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 fentanyl patch program participants between February 2022 and April 2023. Thematic analysis of interview data focused on program engagement, experiences, impacts, and challenges.

RESULTS

The flexible program structure, including lack of need for daily dispensation, the extended missed dose protocol, and community pharmacy patch distribution fostered engagement and enhanced autonomy. Improved management of withdrawal symptoms and cravings due to steady transdermal dosing led to reduced unregulated drug use and overdose risk. Participants also experienced economic benefits and improvements in overall health and quality of life. However, skin irritation and patch adhesion issues were key barriers to program retention.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate the value of including fentanyl patch safer supply in the substance use continuum of care and offer insights for innovations in delivery of this intervention.

Mapping a moral panic: News media narratives and medical expertise in public debates on safer supply, diversion, and youth drug use in Canada

The ongoing overdose and drug toxicity crisis in North America has contributed momentum to the emergence of safer supply prescribing and programs in Canada as a means of providing an alternative to the highly volatile unregulated drug supply. The implementation and scale-up of safer supply have been met with a vocal reaction on the part of news media commentators, conservative politicians, recovery industry representatives, and some prominent addiction medicine physicians. This reaction has largely converged around several narratives, based on unsubstantiated claims and anecdotal evidence, alleging that safer supply programs are generating a "new opioid epidemic", reflecting an emerging alignment among key institutional and political actors. Employing situational analysis method, and drawing on the policy studies and social science scholarship on moral panics, this essay examines news media coverage from January to July 2023, bringing this into dialogue with other existing empirical sources on safer supply (e.g. Coroner's reports, program evaluations, debates among experts in medical journals). We employ eight previously established criteria delineating moral panics to critically appraise public dialogue regarding safer supply, diverted medication, and claims of increased youth initiation to drug use and youth overdose. In detailing the emergence of a moral panic regarding safer supply, we trace historic continuities with earlier drug scares in Canadian history mobilized as tools of racialized poverty governance, as well as previous backlashes towards healthcare interventions for people who use drugs (PWUD). The essay assesses the claims of moral entrepreneurs against the current landscape of opioid use, diversion, and overdose among youth, notes the key role played by medical expertise in this and previous moral panics, and identifies what the convergence of these narratives materialize for PWUD and healthcare access, as well as the broader policy responses such narratives activate.

"And this is the life jacket, the lifeline they've been wanting": Participant perspectives on navigating challenges and successes of prescribed safer supply

BACKGROUND

In 2021, 43% of drug toxicity deaths in Ontario were reported by public health units serving medium-sized urban and rural communities. Safer supply programs (SSPs) have been primarily established in large urban centres. Given this, the current study is based on an evaluation of a SSP based in a medium-sized urban centre with a large catchment area that includes rural and Indigenous communities. The aim of this research paper is to understand the challenges and successes of the nurse practitioner-led SSP from the perspective of program participants.

METHODS

Interpretive description was used to understand the experiences of 14 participants accessing a SSP. Each participant was interviewed using a semi-structured approach, and 13 of the interviewees also completed surveys accessed through Qualtrics. An iterative process using NVivo software was used to code interviews, and a constant comparative data analysis approach was used to refine and categorize codes to themes.

FINDINGS

Three overarching themes were the result of this analysis: feeling better, renewed hope, and safety. These three themes capture the experiences of participants in the SSP, including both the challenges and successes they faced.

CONCLUSION

The findings and subsequent discussion focus on both the key best practices of the program, and areas for future development and improvement. Despite barriers to services, prescribed SSPs are improving the lives of people who use drugs, and the current outcomes align with reports and evaluations from other SSPs across Canada.

Prescribed safer supply during dual public health emergencies: a qualitative study examining service providers perspectives on early implementation

BACKGROUND

Within North America and worldwide, drug related overdoses have increased dramatically over the past decade. COVID-19 escalated the need for a safer supply to replace unregulated substances and to reduce toxicity and overdoses. Service providers play an integral role in the delivery of safer supply but there is little empirical evidence that conceptualizes effective safer supply from their perspectives. This study explored early implementation and impacts of a safer supply program, capturing the perspectives of an interdisciplinary team of service providers on tensions and issues encountered in the development of the SAFER program.

METHODS

Using a community-based participatory approach, we conducted individual interviews with program providers (n = 9). The research team was composed of researchers from a local drug user organization, a local harm reduction organization, and academic researchers. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed the interview guide. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

There are six themes describing early implementation: (1) risk mitigation prescribing as context for early implementation; (2) developing SAFER specific clinical protocols; (3) accessibility challenges and program innovations; (4) interdisciplinary team and wraparound care; (5) program tensions between addiction medicine and harm reduction; (6) the successes of safer supply and future visions.

CONCLUSION

Early implementation issues and tensions included prescriber concerns about safer supply prescribing in a highly politicized environment, accessibility challenges for service users such as stigma, encampment displacement, OAT requirements, program capacity and costs, and tensions between addiction medicine and harm reduction. Navigating these tensions included development of clinical protocols, innovations to reduce accessibility challenges such as outreach, wraparound care, program coverage of medication costs and prescribing safer supply with/without OAT. These findings contribute important insights for the development of prescribed safer supply programs.

Prescribed safer opioid supply: A scoping review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Safer opioid supply programs provide prescription pharmaceutical opioids, often with supportive services, to people at high risk of experiencing harms related to substance use. However, questions regarding the effectiveness and safety of this practice remain. We conducted a scoping review of literature describing client outcomes from formal opioid supply programs providing prescriptions for pharmaceutical opioids, and the perceptions of involved clients/providers.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review of peer-reviewed studies and grey literature published between January 1, 2012, to September 12, 2023. We included articles reporting either safer opioid supply client outcomes or clients/providers perspectives. Extracted data included study objectives, substance use patterns, client outcomes, client/provider perspectives, and estimates of effectiveness and/or harm.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 1,597 articles. Following removal of duplicates and application of exclusion criteria, 24 publications comprising 17 peer-reviewed and seven grey literature publications were included in our study. We generated eight themes summarizing topics in the available literature: opioid-related toxicities, infectious complications, other clinical outcomes, client-reported outcomes, program access barriers, diversion, program retention, and costs to the healthcare system. Specific findings included low rates of opioid toxicities, improved physical and mental health, and improved quality of life among clients. A lack of access to adequate opioid doses and the limited range of opioid options offered within safer opioid supply programs was described by clients and providers as a potential reason for diversion and a barrier to program access.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, evidence suggests that safer opioid supply programs are beneficial to clients through measurable outcomes. However, the available literature has important limitations, including limited inferences about the effectiveness, safety, and potential for diversion within safer opioid supply programs. Further research is needed to support the ongoing evaluation of safer opioid supply programs as one component of a multifactorial response to escalating rates of substance-related harms.

Understanding the barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining Mobile Overdose Response Services from the perspective of Canadian key interest groups: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Unregulated supply of fentanyl and adulterants continues to drive the overdose crisis. Mobile Overdose Response Services (MORS) are novel technologies that offer virtual supervised consumption to minimize the risk of fatal overdose for those who are unable to access other forms of harm reduction. However, as newly implemented services, they are also faced with numerous limitations. The aim of this study was to examine the facilitators and barriers to the adoption of MORS in Canada.

METHODS

A total of 64 semi-structured interviews were conducted between November 2021 and April 2022. Participants consisted of people who use substances (PWUS), family members of PWUS, health care professionals, harm reduction workers, MORS operators, and members of the general public. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify the major themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Respondents revealed that MORS facilitated a safe, anonymous, and nonjudgmental environment for PWUS to seek harm reduction and other necessary support. It also created a new sense of purpose for operators to positively contribute to the community. Further advertising and promotional efforts were deemed important to increase its awareness. However, barriers to MORS implementation included concerns regarding privacy/confidentiality, uncertainty of funding, and compassion fatigue among the operators.

CONCLUSION

Although MORS were generally viewed as a useful addition to the currently existing harm reduction services, it's important to monitor and tackle these barriers by engaging the perspectives of key interest groups.

Substance use care innovations during COVID-19: barriers and facilitators to the provision of safer supply at a toronto COVID-19 isolation and recovery site

BACKGROUND

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an urgent need to establish isolation spaces for people experiencing homelessness who were exposed to or had COVID-19. In response, community agencies and the City of Toronto opened COVID-19 isolation and recovery sites (CIRS) in March 2020. We sought to examine the provision of comprehensive substance use services offered to clients on-site to facilitate isolation, particularly the uptake of safer supply prescribing (prescription of pharmaceutical opioids and/or stimulants) as part of a spectrum of comprehensive harm reduction and addiction treatment interventions.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 25 clients and 25 staff (including peer, harm reduction, nursing and medical team members) from the CIRS in April-July 2021. Iterative and thematic analytic methods were used to identify key themes that emerged in the interview discussions.

RESULTS

At the time of implementation of the CIRS, the provision of a safer supply of opioids and stimulants was a novel and somewhat controversial practice. Prescribed safer supply was integrated to address the high risk of overdose among clients needing to isolate due to COVID-19. The impact of responding to on-site overdoses and presence of harm reduction and peer teams helped clinical staff overcome hesitation to prescribing safer supply. Site-specific clinical guidance and substance use specialist consults were crucial tools in building capacity to provide safer supply. Staff members had varied perspectives on what constitutes 'evidence-based' practice in a rapidly changing, crisis situation.

CONCLUSION

The urgency involved in intervening during a crisis enabled the adoption of prescribed safer supply, meeting the needs of people who use substances and assisting them to complete isolation periods, while also expanding what constitutes acceptable goals in the care of people who use drugs to include harm reduction approaches.

"Safer Drug Supply" Measures in Canada to Reduce the Drug Overdose Fatality Toll: Clarifying Concepts, Practices and Evidence Within a Public Health Intervention Framework

North America has been home to an unprecedented crisis of drug overdose deaths, driven largely by drug users' exposure to highly potent and toxic, illicit opioid drugs (e.g., fentanyl). Although a large and diverse menu of interventions (e.g., targeted prevention or treatment measures) has been implemented or expanded in Canada, these have not effectively managed to revert and reduce this excessive death toll. Given the fact that these interventions do not directly aim to address toxic drug exposure as the primary vector and cause of acute overdose deaths, public health-oriented "safer drug supply" measures have been initiated in local settings across Canada. These safer supply initiatives provide users with prescribed, pharmaceutical-grade drug supply with the aim of reducing overdose and death risks. These measures have been criticized but also misconstrued from several angles, e.g., as representing inadequate medical or even unethical and harmful practice. Related concerns regarding "diversion" have been raised. In this Perspective, we briefly address some of these issues and clarify selected issues of elementary concepts, practices, and evidence related to safer supply measures within a public health-oriented intervention framework. These measures are also discussed in reference to other, comparable types of public health-oriented emergency health or survival care standards, while considering the extreme contexts of an ongoing, acute drug death crisis in Canada.

Impact of safer supply programs on injection practices: client and provider experiences in Ontario, Canada

OBJECTIVES

Fentanyl has contributed to a sharp rise in the toxicity of the unregulated drug supply and fatal overdoses in Canada. It has also changed injection practices. Injection frequency has increased as a result and so has equipment sharing and health-related risks. The aim of this analysis was to explore the impact of safer supply programs on injection practices from the perspective of clients and providers in Ontario, Canada.

METHODS

The data set included qualitative interviews with 52 clients and 21 providers that were conducted between February and October 2021 across four safer supply programs. Interview excerpts discussing injection practices were extracted, screened, coded and then grouped into themes.

RESULTS

We identified three themes, each theme corresponding to a change in injection practices. The first change was a decrease in the amount of fentanyl used and a decrease in injection frequency. The second change involved switching to injecting hydromorphone tablets instead of fentanyl. Finally, the third change was stopping injecting altogether and taking safer supply medications orally.

CONCLUSION

Safer supply programs can contribute to reducing injection-related health risks in addition to overdose risks. More specifically, they have the potential to address disease prevention and health promotion gaps that stand-alone downstream harm reduction interventions cannot address, by working upstream and providing a safer alternative to fentanyl.