Attitudes Toward Injection Practices Among People Who Inject Drugs Utilizing Medical Services: Opportunities for Harm Reduction Counseling in Health Care Settings.

Hospitals are an important setting to provide harm reduction services to people who inject drugs (PWID). This study aimed to characterize PWID's injection practices, the perceived risk and benefits of those practices, and the immediate IDU risk environment among individuals seeking medical care. Surveys were administered to 120 PWID seeking medical services at an urban hospital. Poisson regression was used to examine the effect of perceived risk or importance of injection practices on the rate of engaging in those practices. The mean participant reported "often" reusing syringes and "occasionally" cleaning their hands or skin prior to injection. 78% of participants reported that syringes were extremely risky to share, which was associated with lower likelihood of sharing them (ARR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.36-0.95). 38% of participants reported it was extremely important to use a new syringe for each injection, and these participants were more likely to report never reusing syringes >5 times (ARR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.11-2.35). Other factors that may influence injection practices-including fear of arrest, withdrawal, lack of access to supplies, and injecting outdoors-were common among participants. In conclusion, practices that place PWID at risk of injury and infection are common, and risk-benefit perception is associated with some, but not all, injection practices. Injecting in challenging environments and conditions is common. Therefore, harm reduction counseling in medical settings must be accompanied by other strategies to reduce risk, including facilitating access to supplies. Ultimately, structural interventions, such as affordable housing, are needed to address the risk environment.

Individuals Reporting Past 3-month Smoked Stimulant Use Are Placed at Risk for Infection and Injury Amid COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: Smoking stimulants, such as methamphetamine and "crack" cocaine, can spread infections, including hepatitis C and COVID-19, and lead to injuries, particularly when individuals share or use makeshift pipes. The purpose of the study was to assess the practices of people who inhale ("smoke") stimulants to guide future clinical harm reduction efforts. METHODS: Anonymous surveys were administered to participants reporting inhalation of crack cocaine and/or methamphetamine in the past 3 months. Participants were eligible if they sought services from an outreach team staffed by a municipal syringe service program (SSP) or if they were patients at a low-threshold substance use disorder treatment program, the Massachusetts General Hospital Bridge Clinic. RESULTS: The survey was administered to 68 total participants, 30% of whom were recruited in the Massachusetts General Hospital Bridge Clinic and 70% through SSP outreach. Unsafe smoking practices were reported by 93% of participants. Among the 46% of participants surveyed who both smoked and injected stimulants, 61% of those participants stated that they injected instead of smoked stimulants because of lack of access to pipes. Amid COVID-19, 35% of participants adopted safer smoking practices. Most participants reported that they would be more likely to attend an SSP or health center if pipes were provided. CONCLUSIONS: Inhalational practices that place participants at risk of injury and illness are common. Providing safer smoking equipment may promote health and engage individuals in care.

Implementation of a multidisciplinary inpatient opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution program at a large academic medical center.

PURPOSE: Opioid overdose-related deaths continue to rise. Despite public health efforts, there is still variability in obtainment of naloxone, a lifesaving antidote. We share our experience in the implementation of a novel opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) program at a large academic medical center. METHODS: Collaborative efforts made by pharmacists, pharmacy students, physicians, nurses, and recovery coaches were employed in the design of the program. The service was available Monday through Friday, 9 am to 6 pm, and primarily carried out by pharmacy students on a rotating basis. Services offered included bedside delivery of naloxone and education prior to the day of discharge. In preparation for their role, the pharmacy students were required to complete a series of trainings and competency assessments. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were included in the program evaluation. Of the completed consults 96.7% (n = 30) of patients received both counseling and naloxone delivery. Eighty percent of patients had a history of nonfatal opioid overdose, but only 37.5% had naloxone listed as a home medication. OEND services were provided to 66% of individuals with patient-directed discharges. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an inpatient OEND program by mobilizing trained student pharmacists is feasible and expands naloxone access to patients during transitions of care. A similar model could be considered in the future for the delivery of harm reduction supplies to this patient population.

Use of promethazine, gabapentin and clonidine in combination with opioids or opioid agonist therapies among individuals attending a syringe service program.

BACKGROUND: Clonidine, gabapentin, and promethazine are commonly used by people who use opioids, including heroin, raising concern for increased morbidity and mortality in a vulnerable population. We aimed to characterize how and why individuals use opioids in combination with these three psychoactive medications (PAMs). METHODS: Participants (n = 103) were a convenience sample of adults attending a syringe service program who reported using a PAM in addition to opioids or opioid agonist therapies (buprenorphine or methadone). Face-to-face structured interviews consisted of closed and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Patterns of PAM use varied. Risky use, including use of high doses and with other sedating medications, was common. Most individuals reported multiple medical reasons for use, even while reporting the PAM had mind-altering effects. Use of high doses of PAMs was associated with a history of overdose. Among those with a history of overdose, 32% reported that a PAM was involved. CONCLUSION: The use of clonidine, gabapentin and promethazine among individuals who use opioids is complex. Providers should take individualized approaches to PAM prescribing, recognizing both the risks of PAMs and the potential unintended consequences of supply-side interventions in the era of the overdose crisis. Harm reduction interventions are needed to prevent PAM-involved overdoses.

Smoking and hospitalisation: harnessing medical ethics and harm reduction.

As resident physicians practicing Internal Medicine in hospitals within the USA, we are confronted on a daily basis with patients who wish to leave the hospital floor to smoke a cigarette. While many physicians argue that hospitals should do everything in their power to prevent patients from smoking, we argue that a more comprehensive and nuanced approach is needed. In part 1 of this perspective piece, we outline the various forms of smoking bans in hospital settings, applauding the development of indoor smoking bans while questioning the move towards stricter, campus-wide smoking bans. In part 2, we turn to traditional biomedical ethics to guide our approach to the hospitalised patient who smokes. This approach, which is informed by our backgrounds in harm reduction and medical anthropology, takes into account the lived realities of patients and acknowledges the complicated sociohistorical contexts of tobacco use.

Development and implementation of an alcohol withdrawal protocol using a 5-item scale, the Brief Alcohol Withdrawal Scale (BAWS).

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for management of alcohol withdrawal is symptom-triggered treatment using the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar). Many items of this 10-question scale rely on subjective assessments of withdrawal symptoms, making it time-consuming and cumbersome to use. Therefore, there is interest in shorter and more objective methods to assess alcohol withdrawal symptoms. METHODS: A 6-item withdrawal scale developed at another institution was piloted. Based on comparison with the CIWA-Ar, this was adapted into a 5-item scale named the Brief Alcohol Withdrawal Scale (BAWS). The BAWS was compared with the CIWA-Ar and a withdrawal protocol utilizing the BAWS was developed. The new protocol was implemented on an inpatient unit dedicated to treating substance withdrawal. Data was collected on the first 3 months of implementation and compared with the 3 months prior to that. RESULTS: A BAWS score of 3 or more predicted CIWA-Ar score ≥8 with a sensitivity of 85.3% and specificity of 65.8%. The demographics of the patients in the 2 time periods were similar: the mean age was 45.9; 70.6% were male; 30.9% received concurrent treatment for opioid withdrawal; and 14.2% were receiving methadone maintenance. During the BAWS phase, patients received significantly less diazepam (mean dose 81.4 vs. 60.3 mg, P < .001). There was no significant difference in length of stay. No patients experienced a seizure, delirium, or required transfer to a higher level of care during any of the 664 admissions in either phase. CONCLUSIONS: This simple protocol utilizing a 5-item withdrawal scale performed well in this setting. Its use in other settings, particularly with patients with concurrent medical illnesses or more severe withdrawal, needs to be explored further.