Harm Reduction in the Field: First Responders' Perceptions of Opioid Overdose Interventions.

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.

"Another tool in the toolkit"-Perceptions, suggestions, and concerns of emergency service providers about the implementation of a supervised consumption site.

BACKGROUND: As Supervised Consumption Sites (SCS) are implemented in the United States, it is important to consider the needs and perceptions of impacted stakeholders. Emergency service providers (ESP) have a central role in responding to the overdose epidemic. This study intended to assess the how ESP perceive the potential implementation of an SCS in their community, as well as solicit program design and implementation-related concerns and suggestions. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted by videoconference with 22 ESP, including firefighters, paramedics, police, and social workers in King County, Washington, USA. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants expressed the importance of feeling safe while responding to calls where drug use is involved and highlighted how this perception would be linked to ESP response times to calls from an SCS. Suggestions for improving the perceived safety of an SCS included training program staff in de-escalation as well as planning the layout of the SCS to accommodate ESP. The inadequacy of the emergency department as a point of care for PWUD was also identified as a theme, and some participants expressed enthusiasm regarding the prospect of the SCS as an alternative destination for transport. Finally, support for the SCS model was conditional on the appropriate utilization of emergency services and a reduction in call volume. Participants listed clarifying roles and pursuing opportunities for collaboration as ways to ensure appropriate utilization and maintain positive working relationships. CONCLUSION: This study builds on literature regarding stakeholder perceptions of SCS by focusing on the perceptions of a critically important stakeholder group. Results enhance understanding of what motivates ESP to support SCS implementation in their community. Other novel insights pertain to ESP thoughts about alternative care delivery models and strategies for emergency department visit diversion.