RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Emergency medical services (EMS) systems are piloting interventions to respond to overdoses with additional services such as leave-behind naloxone and medication for opioid use disorder, but little is known about the perspectives of people who use drugs (PWUD) on these interventions being delivered by EMS during an overdose response. METHODS: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided the development of data collection tools, the analytic strategy and the organisation of results. A community engaged method was used which included both academically trained researchers and community trained researchers who are also PWUD. This study used semi-structured interviews to gather data from 13 PWUD in King County, Washington in June 2022. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The people interviewed for this study viewed EMS distribution of leave-behind naloxone and field-based buprenorphine favourably. They viewed EMS facilitation of hepatitis C virus and HIV testing in the field less favourably and were concerned about stigmas associated with those results. Additional themes emerged regarding: the need for different approaches to post-overdose care; the need for new services, including post-overdose trauma counselling and an alternative destination to the emergency department; and the harms of law enforcement presence at overdose responses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This study found strong support for leave-behind naloxone and field-initiated buprenorphine. Further training for EMS should include trauma-informed care and strategies to address burnout and increase compassion. Alternatives to the emergency department as a post-overdose destination are needed. These strategies should be considered by jurisdictions revising overdose response protocols.
RESUMO
Introduction: Recent policy changes in Washington State presented a unique opportunity to pair evidence-based interventions with first responder services to combat increasing opioid overdoses. However, little is known about how these interventions should be implemented. In partnership with the Research with Expert Advisors on Drug Use team, a group of academically trained and community-trained researchers with lived and living experience of substance use, we examined facilitators and barriers to adopting leave-behind naloxone, field-based buprenorphine initiation, and HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing for first responder programs. Methods: Our team completed semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 32 first responders, mobile integrated health staff, and emergency medical services (EMS) leaders in King County, Washington, from February-May 2022. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using an integrated deductive and inductive thematic analysis approach grounded in community-engaged research principles. We collected data until saturation was achieved. Data collection and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Two investigators coded independently until 100% consensus was reached. Results: Our thematic analysis revealed several perceived facilitators (ie, tension for change, relative advantage, and compatibility) and barriers (ie, limited adaptability, lack of evidence strength and quality, and prohibitive cost) to the adoption of these evidence-based clinical interventions for first responder systems. There was widespread support for the distribution of leave-behind naloxone, although funding was identified as a barrier. Many believed field-based initiation of buprenorphine treatment could provide a more effective response to overdose management, but there were significant concerns that this intervention could run counter to the rapid care model. Lastly, participants worried that HIV and HCV testing was inappropriate for first responders to conduct but recommended that this service be provided by mobile integrated health staff. Conclusion: These results have informed local EMS strategic planning, which will inform roll out of process improvements in King County, Washington. Future work should evaluate the impact of these interventions on the health of overdose survivors.