Objectives
Unpredictable fluctuations in the illicit drug market increase overdose risk. Drug checking, or the use of technology to provide insight into the contents of illicit drug products, is an overdose prevention strategy with an emerging evidence base. The use of portable spectrometry devices to provide point-of-service analysis of the contents of illicit drugs been adopted by harm reduction organizations internationally but is only emerging in the United States. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of implementing drug checking services with spectrometry devices in an urban harm reduction organization and syringe service program serving economically marginalized people who use drugs in Boston, Massachusetts (USA).
Methods
In-vivo observations and semi-structured interviews with harm reduction staff and participants were conducted between March 2019 and December 2020. We used the consolidated framework for implementation research to identify implementation barriers and facilitators.
Results
This implementation effort was facilitated by the organization’s shared culture of harm reduction—which fostered shared implementation goals and beliefs about the intervention among staff persons—its horizontal organizational structure, strong identification with the organization among staff, and strong relationships with external funders. Barriers to implementation included the technological complexity of the advanced spectroscopy devices utilized for drug checking. Program staff indicated that commercially available spectroscopy devices are powerful but not always well-suited for drug checking efforts, describing their technological capacities as “the Bronze Age of Drug Checking.” Other significant barriers include the legal ambiguity of drug checking services, disruptive and oppositional police activity, and the responses and programmatic changes demanded by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conclusions
For harm reduction organizations to be successful in efforts to implement and scale drug checking services, these critical barriers—especially regressive policing policies and prohibitive costs—need to be addressed. Future research on the impact of policy changes to reduce the criminalization of substance use or to provide explicit legal frameworks for the provision of this and other harm reduction services may be merited.
Background: To reduce the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many substance use disorder treatment programs have transitioned to telemedicine. Emergency regulatory changes allow buprenorphine initiation without an in-person visit. We describe the use of videoconferencing for buprenorphine initiation combined with street outreach to engage 2 patients experiencing homelessness with severe opioid use disorder (OUD). Case Presentation: Patient 1 was a 30-year-old man with severe OUD who had relapsed to injection heroin/fentanyl after incarceration. A community drop-in center outreach harm reduction specialist facilitated a videoconference with an addiction specialist at an OUD bridge clinic. The patient completed a community buprenorphine/ naloxone initiation and self-titrated to his prior dose, 8/2 mg twice daily. One week later, he reconnected with the outreach team for a follow-up videoconference visit. Patient 2, a 36-year-old man with severe OUD, connected to the addiction specialist via a syringe service program harm reduction specialist. He had been trying to connect to a community buprenorphine/naloxone provider, but access was limited due to COVID-19, so he was using diverted buprenorphine/naloxone to reduce opioid use. He was restarted on his previous dose of 12/3 mg daily which was continued via phone follow-up 16 days later. Conclusions: COVID-19-related regulatory changes allow buprenorphine initiation via telemedicine. We describe 2 cases where telemedicine was combined with street outreach to connect patients experiencing homelessness with OUD to treatment. These cases highlight an important opportunity to provide access to life-saving OUD treatment for vulnerable patients in the setting of a pandemic that mandates reduced face-to-face clinical interactions.
Most respondents (91.4%) reported willingness to use a SIF. Respondents with substance use behavior reflecting high risk for overdose were significantly more likely to be willing to use a SIF. Respondents with behaviors that contribute to public health burden of injection drug use were also significantly more likely to be willing to use a SIF. Results indicate that this intervention would be well utilized by individuals who could most benefit from the model. As part of a broader public health approach, SIFs should be considered to reduce opioid overdose mortality, decrease public health burden of the opioid crisis, and promote access to addiction treatment and medical care.
Opioid overdoses killed 47,600 people in the United States in 2017. Despite increasing availability of office-based addiction treatment programs, the prevalence of opioid overdose is historically high and disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including people experiencing homelessness. Despite availability of effective treatment, many at greatest risk of death from overdose experience myriad barriers to care. Launched in 2018, the Community Care in Reach mobile health initiative uses a data-driven approach to bring harm reduction and medication for opioid use disorder directly to those at highest risk of near-term death. Proof-of-concept results suggest that mobile addiction services may serve as a model for expanding access to addiction care for the most vulnerable.
Background
Syringe service programs (SSPs) provide essential harm reduction and prevention services for people who inject drugs in the USA, where SSP coverage is expanding. During the COVID-19 pandemic, US SSPs underwent unprecedented shifts in operational procedures (e.g., closures of physical sites, staff redeployment into pandemic response efforts). Given the critical role of US SSP workers in the pandemic, we sought to explore the occupational experiences and well-being of SSP staff to inform future emergency response efforts.
Methods
From July–October 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews with staff members of four SSPs in diverse regions of Massachusetts. Trained interviewers administered qualitative interviews virtually. Interviews were coded in NVivo v12 and thematic analysis identified common occupational experiences and related impacts on staff well-being in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Results
Among 18 participants, 12 (67%) had client-facing roles such as harm reduction specialists and six (33%) worked in program management or leadership. We found that staff were frequently anxious about SARS-CoV-2 transmission, which contributed to staff turnover. SSPs rapidly adapted and expanded their services to meet increasing client needs during the pandemic (e.g., food distribution, COVID-19 testing), leading to staff overexertion. Simultaneously, public health measures such as physical distancing led to staff concerns about reduced social connections with clients and coworkers. Through these challenges, SSPs worked to protect staff well-being by implementing flexible and tangible COVID-19-related policies (e.g., paid sick leave), mental health resources, and frequent communication regarding pandemic-related operational changes.
Conclusion
SSPs in the USA adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic out of necessity, resulting in operational changes that threatened staff well-being. Despite the protective factors revealed in some narratives, our findings suggest that during prolonged, complex public health emergencies, SSPs may benefit from enhanced occupational supports to prevent burnout and promote wellness for this essential public health workforce.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.