"As long as that place stays open, I'll stay alive": Accessing injectable opioid agonist treatment during dual public health crises.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, overdose rates in North America have continued to rise, with more than 100,000 drug poisoning deaths in the past year. Amidst an increasingly toxic drug supply, the pandemic disrupted essential substance use treatment and harm reduction services that reduce overdose risk for people who use drugs. In British Columbia, one such treatment is injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), the supervised dispensation of injectable hydromorphone or diacetylmorphine for people with opioid use disorder. While evidence has shown iOAT to be safe and effective, it is intensive and highly regimented, characterized by daily clinic visits and provider-client interaction-treatment components made difficult by the pandemic. METHODS: Between April 2020 and February 2021, we conducted 51 interviews with 18 iOAT clients and two clinic nurses to understand how the pandemic shaped iOAT access and treatment experiences. To analyze interview data, we employed a multi-step, flexible coding strategy, an iterative and abductive approach to analysis, using NVivo software. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed the ways in which the pandemic shaped clients' lives and the provision of iOAT care. First, client narratives illuminated how the pandemic reinforced existing inequities. For example, socioeconomically marginalized clients expressed concerns around their financial stability and economic impacts on their communities. Second, clients with health comorbidities recognized how the pandemic amplified health risks, through potential COVID-19 exposure or by limiting social connection and mental health supports. Third, clients described how the pandemic changed their engagement with the iOAT clinic and medication. For instance, clients noted that physical distancing guidelines and occupancy limits reduced opportunities for social connection with staff and other iOAT clients. However, pandemic policies also created opportunities to adapt treatment in ways that increased patient trust and autonomy, for example through more flexible medication regimens and take-home oral doses. CONCLUSION: Participant narratives underscored the unequal distribution of pandemic impacts for people who use drugs but also highlighted opportunities for more flexible, patient-centered treatment approaches. Across treatment settings, pandemic-era changes that increase client autonomy and ensure equitable access to care are to be continued and expanded, beyond the duration of the pandemic.

EQUIP emergency: can interventions to reduce racism, discrimination and stigma in EDs improve outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Despite a publicly funded system, health care in Canada has been shown to be deeply inequitable, particularly toward Indigenous people. Based on research identifying key dimensions of equity-oriented health care as being cultural safety, harm reduction and trauma- and violence-informed care, an intervention to promote equity at the organizational level was tested in primary health care, refined and adapted, and tested in Emergency Departments (EDs). METHODS: In partnership with clinical, community and Indigenous leaders in three diverse EDs in one Canadian province, we supported direct care staff to tailor and implement the intervention. Intervention activities varied in type and intensity at each site. Survey data were collected pre- and post-intervention from every consecutive patient over age 18 presenting to the EDs (n = 4771) with 3315 completing post-visit questions in 4 waves at two sites and 3 waves (due to pandemic constraints) at the third. Administrative data were collected for 12 months pre- and 12 months post-intervention. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, the participating EDs were dealing with a worsening epidemic of overdoses and deaths related to a toxic drug supply, and the COVID 19 pandemic curtailed both intervention activities and data collection. Despite these constraints, staff at two of the EDs mounted equity-oriented intervention strategies; the other site was experiencing continued, significant staff shortages and leadership changeover. Longitudinal analysis using multiple regression showed non-significant but encouraging trends in patient perceptions of quality of care and patient experiences of discrimination in the ED. Subgroup analysis showed that specific groups of patients experienced care in significantly different ways at each site. An interrupted time series of administrative data showed no significant change in staff sick time, but showed a significant decrease in the percentage of patients who left without care being completed at the site with the most robust intervention activities. CONCLUSIONS: The trends in patient perceptions and the significant decrease in the percentage of patients who left without care being completed suggest potential for impact. Realization of this potential will depend on readiness, commitment and resources at the organizational and systems levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov #NCT03369678 (registration date November 18, 2017).

EQUIP Emergency: study protocol for an organizational intervention to promote equity in health care.

BACKGROUND: Social inequities are widening globally, contributing to growing health and health care inequities. Health inequities are unjust differences in health and well-being between and within groups of people caused by socially structured, and thus avoidable, marginalizing conditions such as poverty and systemic racism. In Canada, such conditions disproportionately affect Indigenous persons, racialized newcomers, those with mental health and substance use issues, and those experiencing interpersonal violence. Despite calls to enhance equity in health care to contribute to improving population health, few studies examine how to achieve equity at the point of care, and the impacts of doing so. Many people facing marginalizing conditions experience inadequate and inequitable treatment in emergency departments (EDs), which makes people less likely to access care, paradoxically resulting in reliance on EDs through delays to care and repeat visits, interfering with effective care delivery and increasing human and financial costs. EDs are key settings with potential for mitigating the impacts of structural conditions and barriers to care linked to health inequities. METHODS: EQUIP is an organizational intervention to promote equity. Building on promising research in primary health care, we are adapting EQUIP to emergency departments, and testing its impact at three geographically and demographically diverse EDs in one Canadian province. A mixed methods multisite design will examine changes in key outcomes including: a) a longitudinal analysis of change over time based on structured assessments of patients and staff, b) an interrupted time series design of administrative data (i.e., staff sick leave, patients who leave without care being completed), c) a process evaluation to assess how the intervention was implemented and the contextual features of the environment and process that are influential for successful implementation, and d) a cost-benefit analysis. DISCUSSION: This project will generate both process- and outcome-based evidence to improve the provision of equity-oriented health care in emergency departments, particularly targeting groups known to be at greatest risk for experiencing the negative impacts of health and health care inequities. The main deliverable is a health equity-enhancing framework, including implementable, measurable interventions, tested, refined and relevant to diverse EDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov # NCT03369678 (registration date November 18, 2017).

The mobilization of nurse-client therapeutic relationships in injectable opioid agonist treatment: Autonomy, advocacy and action.

INTRODUCTION: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is an evidence-based treatment that serves an important minority of people with opioid use disorder who require specialized care. Unique to iOAT care is the consistency with which clients access treatment (up to three times daily), a condition that creates repeated opportunities for health care engagement. To date, no study has examined therapeutic relationships in this life saving, nurse-led treatment that can have lasting implications in the equitable delivery of other forms of addictions care. METHODS: This study used grounded theory to generate a dynamic framework for therapeutic relationship building in iOAT. Researchers collected semi-structured interviews from registered nurses working in iOAT sites (n=24) form January 2020 through June 2022. The study analyzed collected data through a constant comparative analysis; explored through open, axial, and selective coding; and assessed in a conditional relationship matrix. The team reviewed key findings with stakeholders through formalized processes of engagement to confirm saturation of coding categories. Throughout data collection and analysis, researchers integrated feedback from additional knowledge users and member checking. Reported findings adhered to the COREQ1 standardized checklist. RESULTS: We identified five interrelated categories that created a distinct culture of care for iOAT nurses: Ways of Knowing, Personal Investment, Leveraging Empathy, Finding Flexibility, and Collaborating to Overcome. Through creating a safe, nonjudgmental environment, nurses establish therapeutic relationships that build trust to identify client needs outside of medication administration. In turn, nurses participate in team-based problem solving to advocate for client needs. If nurses cannot find flexibility within and outside of the health care system to improve client engagement, tensions can arise and therapeutic relationships can be strained. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic relationships are an integral part of building and maintaining trust with a population that has been precariously involved with other forms of health care. Nurses make a substantial effort to create a safe and nonjudgmental environment to manifest a culture of care that bridges client needs and program access. Without the expansion of access to iOAT programs and their embedded services, nurses are limited in their ability to provide individualized care for clients with diverse needs.

Measuring the preferences of injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) clients: Development of a person-centered scale (best-worst scaling).

BACKGROUND: Injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) is effective for opioid use disorder (OUD), yet little is known about client preferences for accessing iOAT (e.g., with diacetylmorphine, hydromorphone, buprenorphine, fentanyl, etc.). Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a preference elicitation method from health economics that has never been applied to addiction care broadly, or iOAT specifically. We describe the stages of developing a BWS scale that assesses iOAT clients' treatment delivery preferences to inform program planning and maximize healthcare efficiency. METHODS: We underwent several steps to reveal the relevant attributes/levels and design the scale structure. An initial list of potential attributes and levels was established from a literature review and prior qualitative data. Then, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with clients (n=21) on their iOAT preferences to confirm the attributes and prioritize/include new ones. Next, we conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with iOAT experts and stakeholders to receive their input on the draft list of attributes and levels. A BWS profile case design was piloted with iOAT clients (n=18) from different sites during a think aloud interview. After several rounds of revisions, the final version was tested by iOAT clients (n=2) before the scale was launched. RESULTS: We developed a person-centered scale that assesses current and former iOAT clients' most and least wanted aspects of iOAT delivery. The final version yielded 7 unique attributes: choice of medication, choice of dose, convenience, location & space, scheduling & routines, staff & training, and types of services offered. CONCLUSION: This scale can help expand iOAT programs in a way that is person-centered, rapid, and affordable. The methodology is a guide for other regions with similar populations who aim to develop strong quantitative methodologies that prioritize client collaboration.

Provider experiences with relaxing restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Historical restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder have generated considerable debate. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the perceived risks and benefits of daily clinic attendance and led to widespread policy reform, creating an unprecedented opportunity to explore the impact of more flexible prescribing. We conducted a qualitative systematic review to synthesize the evidence on providers' experiences with relaxing restrictions on take-home doses of medications prescribed for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022360589; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). From Sept.-Nov. 2022, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the grey literature from 2020 onward. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they used qualitative methods to investigate providers' experiences with relaxed restrictions on take-home medications for opioid use disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. We appraised study quality using the CASP qualitative checklist and used thematic synthesis and GRADE-CERQual to synthesize the results. RESULTS: We retrieved 13 articles representing 11 studies. Six were conducted in the United States and most focused on changes to methadone treatment. Providers' experiences with increased flexibilities around take-homes were broadly positive, despite widespread initial concern over client safety and the potential for medication misuse. For a small number of providers, concerns about diversion were a specific manifestation of more general unease with loss of control over clients and the treatment process. Most providers appreciated increased flexibilities and described them as enabling more individualized, person-centered care. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the continuation of flexibilities around take-homes and demonstrate that regulations and policies that reduce flexibility around take-homes conflict with person-centered approaches to care. Stronger guidance and support from professional regulatory agencies may help increase uptake of flexibilities around take-homes.

The impact of relaxing restrictions on take-home doses during the COVID-19 pandemic on program effectiveness and client experiences in opioid agonist treatment: a mixed methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented relaxation of restrictions on take-home doses in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). We conducted a mixed methods systematic review to explore the impact of these changes on program effectiveness and client experiences in OAT. METHODS: The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022352310). From Aug.-Nov. 2022, we searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the grey literature. We included studies reporting quantitative measures of retention in treatment, illicit substance use, overdose, client health, quality of life, or treatment satisfaction or using qualitative methods to examine client experiences with take-home doses during the pandemic. We critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesized quantitative data using vote-counting by direction of effect and presented the results in harvest plots. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic synthesis. We used a convergent segregated approach to integrate quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: Forty studies were included. Most were from North America (23/40) or the United Kingdom (9/40). The quantitative synthesis was limited by potential for confounding, but suggested an association between take-home doses and increased retention in treatment. There was no evidence of an association between take-home doses and illicit substance use or overdose. Qualitative findings indicated that take-home doses reduced clients' exposure to unregulated substances and stigma and minimized work/treatment conflicts. Though some clients reported challenges with managing their medication, the dominant narrative was one of appreciation, reduced anxiety, and a renewed sense of agency and identity. The integrated analysis suggested reduced treatment burden as an explanation for improved retention and revealed variation in individual relationships between take-home doses and illicit substance use. We identified a critical gap in quantitative measures of patient-important outcomes. CONCLUSION: The relaxation of restrictions on take-home doses was associated with improved client experience and retention in OAT. We found no evidence of an association with illicit substance use or overdose, despite the expansion of take-home doses to previously ineligible groups. Including patient-important outcome measures in policy, program development, and treatment planning is essential to ensuring that decisions around take-home doses accurately reflect their value to clients.

Through An Equity Lens: Illuminating The Relationships Among Social Inequities, Stigma And Discrimination, And Patient Experiences of Emergency Health Care.

People who experience the greatest social inequities often have poor experiences in emergency departments (EDs) so that they are deterred from seeking care, leave without care complete, receive inadequate care, and/or return repeatedly for unresolved problems. However, efforts to measure and monitor experiences of care rarely capture the experiences of people facing the greatest inequities, experiences of discrimination, or relationships among these variables. This analysis examined how patients' experiences, including self-reported ratings of care, experiences of discrimination, and repeat visits vary with social and economic circumstances. Every consecutive person presenting to three diverse EDs was invited if/when they were able to consent; 2424 provided demographic and contact information; and 1692 (70%) completed the survey. Latent class analysis (LCA) using sociodemographic variables: age, gender, financial strain, employment, housing stability, English as first language, born in Canada, and Indigenous identity, indicated a six-class solution. Classes differed significantly on having regular access to primary care, reasons for the visit, and acuity. Classes also differed on self-reported discrimination every day and during their ED visit, ratings of ED care, and number of ED visits within the past six months. ED care can be improved through attention to how intersecting forms of structural disadvantage and inequities affect patient experiences.

Letter to the Editor.

Thank you for initiating an important conversation regarding NCLEX-RN implementation and experience in Canada. We are three nursing leaders in the province of British Columbia (BC) with continued interest in the governance, regulation and contribution of nursing locally, provincially and nationally. We hold or have held senior policy positions in BC, including in roles responsible for nursing regulation and practice. It is not our intent to replay the past in relation to the exam; rather, our commentary is intended to position the discourse in the broader context of practice regulation and the roles/responsibilities of regulators in our country.

Public Policy and Canadian Nursing: Lessons from the Field By Michael J. Villeneuve.

The recently released book Public Policy and Canadian Nursing: Lessons from the Field, by Michael J. Villeneuve, has been described as a "must read" by Gail Donner, professor emerita, Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, and by Kathleen Macmillan, professor and director of the School of Nursing at Dalhousie University. That is an excellent recommendation from two well-respected Canadian nurse leaders.

Seasonal response of slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. elliottii Engelm.) photosynthesis to long-term exposure to ozone and acidic precipitation.

Four half-sib families of slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. elliottii) were planted in open-top chambers and exposed to ozone and simulated acidic precipitation (3: 7 molar ratio of nitric and sulphuric acids). The 4 ozone treatments were (1) charcoal-filtered air, (2) unfiltered ambient air, (3) twice ambient and (4) three times ambient ozone, with treatments applied 12 h per day, 11 months per year for 28 months. Seedlings were irrigated weekly with one of three rain acidities: pH 33, 4.3 or 5.3 at a total rainfall equivalent of 133 cm per year. Photosynthetic rates were measured approximately every 10 weeks, on the most recently emerged branches each year. In 1988 the 3rd flush was measured, and in 1989 and 1990 the 1st flush of each year was measured. Elevated ozone concentrations generally reduced photosynthetic rates, especially during the summer months, but there was no evidence of either a threshold dose or a simple linear relationship between photosynthesis and ozone exposure. There was a seasonal drop in photosynthetic rates from March to September each year. An ontogenetic decrease in photosynthesis was also evident as trees matured. Stomatal conductance also decreased as the needles aged. Seedlings irrigated with pH 3.3 solution typically exhibited the highest photosynthetic rates, presumably due to a fertilizer effect.