"If it wasn't for them, I don't think I would be here": experiences of the first year of a safer supply program during the dual public health emergencies of COVID-19 and the drug toxicity crisis.

BACKGROUND: In response to the devastating drug toxicity crisis in Canada driven by an unregulated opioid supply predominantly composed of fentanyl and analogues, safer supply programs have been introduced. These programs provide people using street-acquired opioids with prescribed, pharmaceutical opioids. We use six core components of safer supply programs identified by people who use drugs to explore participant perspectives on the first year of operations of a safer supply program in Victoria, BC, during the dual public health emergencies of COVID-19 and the drug toxicity crisis to examine whether the program met drug-user defined elements of an effective safer supply model. METHODS: This study used a community-based participatory research approach to ensure that the research was reflective of community concerns and priorities, rather than being extractive. We interviewed 16 safer supply program participants between December 2020 and June 2021. Analysis was structured using the six core components of effective safer supply from the perspective of people who use drugs, generated through a prior study. RESULTS: Ensuring access to the 'right dose and right drugs' of medications was crucial, with many participants reporting success with the available pharmaceutical options. However, others highlighted issues with the strength of the available medications and the lack of options for smokeable medications. Accessing the safer supply program allowed participants to reduce their use of drugs from unregulated markets and manage withdrawal, pain and cravings. On components related to program operations, participants reported receiving compassionate care, and that accessing the safer supply program was a non-stigmatizing experience. They also reported receiving support to find housing, access food, obtain ID, and other needs. However, participants worried about long term program sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the safer supply program overwhelmingly appreciated it and felt it was lifesaving, and unlike other healthcare or treatment services they had previously accessed. Participants raised concerns that unless a wider variety of medications and ability to consume them by multiple routes of administration became available, safer supply programs would remain unable to completely replace substances from unregulated markets.

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.

Association of Illicit Fentanyl Use with Injection Risk Practices Among People who Inject Drugs.

We investigated the association between fentanyl injection frequency and sharing of injection equipment among people who inject drugs. We surveyed 249 people who inject drugs in Toronto in 2019. We estimated predicted probabilities of associations between fentanyl injection frequency and injection risk practices. In prior 6 months, 117 (47.0%) of participants injected fentanyl daily, 49 (19.7%) less than daily, and 78 (31.3%) did not inject fentanyl. Participants who injected fentanyl daily shared syringes more often than those not injecting fentanyl (25.0% vs. 4.9%; χ2 = 11.54, p = 0.0007). Participants who injected fentanyl daily (42.4% vs. 11.3%; χ2 = 18.05, p < 0.0001) and less than daily (37.2% vs. 11.3%; χ2 = 5.88 p = 0.02) shared cookers more often than those not injecting fentanyl. Participants who injected fentanyl daily (30.2% vs. 9.7%; χ2 = 9.05, p = 0.003) and less than daily (30.3% vs. 9.7%; χ2 = 4.11, p = 0.04) shared filters more often than those not injecting fentanyl. No differences in probabilities of sharing equipment were detected between participants who injected fentanyl daily and less than daily. People using fentanyl reported injection practices that increased risk for infectious disease transmission.

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.

Clinical outcomes and health care costs among people entering a safer opioid supply program in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: London InterCommunity Health Centre (LIHC) launched a safer opioid supply (SOS) program in 2016, where clients are prescribed pharmaceutical opioids and provided with comprehensive health and social supports. We sought to evaluate the impact of this program on health services utilization and health care costs. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis of London, Ontario, residents who received a diagnosis of opioid use disorder (OUD) and who entered the SOS program between January 2016 and March 2019, and a comparison group of individuals matched on demographic and clinical characteristics who were not exposed to the program. Primary outcomes were emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, admissions for infections and health care costs. We used autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models to evaluate the impact of SOS initiation and compared outcome rates in the year before and after cohort entry. RESULTS: In the time series analysis, rates of ED visits (-14 visits/100, 95% confidence interval [CI] -26 to -2; p = 0.02), hospital admissions (-5 admissions/100, 95% CI -9 to -2; p = 0.005) and health care costs not related to primary care or outpatient medications (-$922/person, 95% CI -$1577 to -$268; p = 0.008) declined significantly after entry into the SOS program (n = 82), with no significant change in rates of infections (-1.6 infections/100, 95% CI -4.0 to 0.8; p = 0.2). In the year after cohort entry, the rate of ED visits (rate ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90), hospital admissions (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74), admissions for incident infections (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96) and total health care costs not related to primary care or outpatient medications ($15 635 v. $7310/person-year; p = 0.002) declined significantly among SOS clients compared with the year before. We observed no significant change in any of the primary outcomes among unexposed individuals (n = 303). INTERPRETATION: Although additional research is needed, this preliminary evidence indicates that SOS programs can play an important role in the expansion of treatment and harm-reduction options available to assist people who use drugs and who are at high risk of drug poisoning.

Service utilization patterns and characteristics among clients of integrated supervised consumption sites in Toronto, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Supervised consumption services (SCS), intended to reduce morbidity and mortality among people who inject drugs, have been implemented in a variety of delivery models. We describe and compare access to and uptake of co-located and external services among clients accessing harm reduction-embedded (HR-embedded) and community health center-embedded (CHC-embedded) SCS models. METHODS: Cross-sectional baseline data were collected between November 2018 and March 2020 as part of a cohort of people who inject drugs in Toronto, Canada designed to evaluate one HR-embedded and two CHC-embedded SCS. This analysis was restricted to clients who reported accessing these SCS more than once in the previous 6 months. Participants were classified as HR-embedded or CHC-embedded SCS clients based on self-reported usage patterns. Client characteristics, as well as access to onsite services and referral and uptake of external services, were compared by SCS model. RESULTS: Among 469 SCS clients, 305 (65.0%) primarily used HR-embedded SCS and 164 (35.0%) primarily used CHC-embedded SCS. Compared to clients accessing CHC-embedded SCS, clients accessing HR-embedded SCS were somewhat younger (37.6 vs. 41.4, p < 0.001), more likely to report fentanyl as their primary injected drug (62.6% vs. 42.7%, p < 0.001), and visited SCS more often (49.5% vs. 25.6% ≥ daily, p < 0.001). HR-embedded SCS clients were more likely to access harm reduction services onsite compared to CHC-embedded SCS clients (94.8% vs. 89.6%, p = 0.04), while CHC-embedded SCS clients were more likely to access non-harm reduction services onsite (57.3% vs. 26.6%, p < 0.001). For external services, HR-embedded SCS clients were more likely to receive a referral (p = 0.03) but less likely to report referral uptake (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Clients accessing HR-embedded and CHC-embedded SCS were largely demographically similar but had different drug and SCS use patterns, with CHC-embedded SCS clients using the site less frequently. While clients of CHC-embedded SCS reported greater access to ancillary health services onsite, external service use remained moderate overall, underscoring the importance of co-location and support for clients with system navigation. Importantly, lack of capacity in services across the system may impact ability of staff to make referrals and/or the ability of clients to take up a referral.

Responding to Ontario's Overdose Crisis in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the overdose crisis in Canada. Using data from ICES and the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario, the authors characterized changing patterns of medication use and health services utilization during the pandemic. This analysis suggests that responses to the overdose crisis must confront the rapidly changing unregulated drug supply with a tailored response that addresses varied population needs, expands accessible treatment and harm reduction services and responds to the missed opportunities for engagement and support within various healthcare settings.

A qualitative study on overdose response in the era of COVID-19 and beyond: how to spot someone so they never have to use alone.

BACKGROUND: Spotting is an informal practice among people who use drugs (PWUD) where they witness other people using drugs and respond if an overdose occurs. During COVID-19 restrictions, remote spotting (e.g., using a telephone, video call, and/or a social media app) emerged to address physical distancing requirements and reduced access to harm reduction and/or sexually transmitted blood borne infection (STBBI's) prevention services. We explored spotting implementation issues from the perspectives of spotters and spottees. METHODS: Research assistants with lived/living expertise of drug use used personal networks and word of mouth to recruit PWUD from Ontario and Nova Scotia who provided or used informal spotting. All participants completed a semi-structured, audio-recorded telephone interview about spotting service design, benefits, challenges, and recommendations. Recordings were transcribed and thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 individuals between 08/2020-11/2020 who were involved in informal spotting. Spotting was provided on various platforms (e.g., telephone, video calls, and through texts) and locations (e.g. home, car), offered connection and community support, and addressed barriers to the use of supervised consumption sites (e.g., location, stigma, confidentiality, safety, availability, COVID-19 related closures). Spotting calls often began with setting an overdose response plan (i.e., when and who to call). Many participants noted that, due to the criminalization of drug use and fear of arrest, they preferred that roommates/friends/family members be called instead of emergency services in case of an overdose. Both spotters and spottees raised concerns about the timeliness of overdose response, particularly in remote and rural settings. CONCLUSION: Spotting is a novel addition to, but not replacement for, existing harm reduction services. To optimize overdose/COVID-19/STBBI's prevention services, additional supports (e.g., changes to Good Samaritan Laws) are needed. The criminalization of drug use may limit uptake of formal spotting services.

Practices of care among people who buy, use, and sell drugs in community settings.

BACKGROUND: Popular perception of people who sell drugs is negative, with drug selling framed as predatory and morally reprehensible. In contrast, people who use drugs (PWUD) often describe positive perceptions of the people who sell them drugs. The "Satellite Sites" program in Toronto, Canada, provides harm reduction services in the community spaces where people gather to buy, use, and sell drugs. This program hires PWUD-who may move into and out of drug selling-as harm reduction workers. In this paper, we examine the integration of people who sell drugs directly into harm reduction service provision, and their practices of care with other PWUD in their community. METHODS: Data collection included participant observation within the Satellite Sites over a 7-month period in 2016-2017, complemented by 20 semi-structured interviews with Satellite Site workers, clients, and program supervisors. Thematic analysis was used to examine practices of care emerging from the activities of Satellite Site workers, including those circulating around drug selling and sharing behaviors. RESULTS: Satellite Site workers engage in a variety of practices of care with PWUD accessing their sites. Distribution of harm reduction equipment is more easily visible as a practice of care because it conforms to normative framings of care. Criminalization, coupled with negative framings of drug selling as predatory, contributes to the difficultly in examining acts of mutual aid and care that surround drug selling as practices of care. By taking seriously the importance for PWUD of procuring good quality drugs, a wider variety of practices of care are made visible. These additional practices of care include assistance in buying drugs, information on drug potency, and refusal to sell drugs that are perceived to be too strong. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest a potential for harm reduction programs to incorporate some people who sell drugs into programming. Taking practices of care seriously may remove some barriers to integration of people who sell drugs into harm reduction programming, and assist in the development of more pertinent interventions that understand the key role of drug buying and selling within the lives of PWUD.

Ambivalence about supervised injection facilities among community stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Community stakeholders express a range of opinions about supervised injection facilities (SIFs). We sought to identify reasons for ambivalence about SIFs amongst community stakeholders in two Canadian cities. FINDINGS: We used purposive sampling methods to recruit various stakeholder representatives (n = 141) for key informant interviews or focus group discussions. Data were analyzed using a thematic process. We identified seven reasons for ambivalence about SIFs: lack of personal knowledge of evidence about SIFs; concern that SIF goals are too narrow and the need for a comprehensive response to drug use; uncertainty that the community drug problem is large enough to warrant a SIF(s); the need to know more about the "right" places to locate a SIF(s) to avoid damaging communities or businesses; worry that a SIF(s) will renew problems that existed prior to gentrification; concern that resources for drug use prevention and treatment efforts will be diverted to pay for a SIF(s); and concern that SIF implementation must include evaluation, community consultation, and an explicit commitment to discontinue a SIF(s) in the event of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders desire evidence about potential SIF impacts relevant to local contexts and that addresses perceived potential harms. Stakeholders would also like to see SIFs situated within a comprehensive response to drug use. Future research should determine the relative importance of these concerns and optimal approaches to address them to help guide decision-making about SIFs.