A peer-delivered intervention to reduce harm and improve the well-being of homeless people with problem substance use: the SHARPS feasibility mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: For people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use, access to appropriate services can be challenging. There is evidence that development of trusting relationships with non-judgemental staff can facilitate service engagement. Peer-delivered approaches show particular promise, but the evidence base is still developing. This study tested the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-delivered intervention, through 'Peer Navigators', to support people who are homeless with problem substance use to address a range of health and social issues. OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to design and implement a peer-delivered, relational intervention to reduce harms and improve health/well-being, quality of life and social functioning for people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use, and to conduct a concurrent process evaluation to inform a future randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: A mixed-methods feasibility study with concurrent process evaluation was conducted, involving qualitative interviews [staff interviews (one time point), n = 12; Peer Navigator interviews (three or four time points), n = 15; intervention participant interviews: first time point, n = 24, and second time point, n = 10], observations and quantitative outcome measures. SETTING: The intervention was delivered in three outreach services for people who are homeless in Scotland, and three Salvation Army hostels in England; there were two standard care settings: an outreach service in Scotland and a hostel in England. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use (n = 68) (intervention). INTERVENTION: This was a peer-delivered, relational intervention drawing on principles of psychologically informed environments, with Peer Navigators providing practical and emotional support. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes relating to participants' substance use, participants' physical and mental health needs, and the quality of Peer Navigator relationships were measured via a 'holistic health check', with six questionnaires completed at two time points: a specially created sociodemographic, health and housing status questionnaire; the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items plus the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7; the Maudsley Addiction Profile; the Substance Use Recovery Evaluator; the RAND Corporation Short Form survey-36 items; and the Consultation and Relational Empathy Measure. RESULTS: The Supporting Harm Reduction through Peer Support (SHARPS) study was found to be acceptable to, and feasible for, intervention participants, staff and Peer Navigators. Among participants, there was reduced drug use and an increase in the number of prescriptions for opioid substitution therapy. There were reductions in risky injecting practice and risky sexual behaviour. Participants reported improvements to service engagement and felt more equipped to access services on their own. The lived experience of the Peer Navigators was highlighted as particularly helpful, enabling the development of trusting, authentic and meaningful relationships. The relationship with the Peer Navigator was measured as excellent at baseline and follow-up. Some challenges were experienced in relation to the 'fit' of the intervention within some settings and will inform future studies. LIMITATIONS: Some participants did not complete the outcome measures, or did not complete both sets, meaning that we do not have baseline and/or follow-up data for all. The standard care data sample sizes make comparison between settings limited. CONCLUSIONS: A randomised controlled trial is recommended to assess the effectiveness of the Peer Navigator intervention. FUTURE WORK: A definitive cluster randomised controlled trial should particularly consider setting selection, outcomes and quantitative data collection instruments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN15900054. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People who are homeless have worse physical and mental health, and higher rates of drug/alcohol (substance) use, than the general population. For people experiencing these challenges, completely stopping the use of substances can be difficult. Harm reduction services can be useful in reducing risks. Approaches delivered by people who have had similar experiences (peers) are also promising. Some research has highlighted the importance of trusting relationships with service staff. More research is needed on how all of these should work with people who are homeless and who use substances. This study consisted of four 'Peer Navigators' providing practical and emotional support to a group of people who are homeless and use substances to help improve their quality of life and health. The Peer Navigators had similar past experiences. The Peer Navigators were hired, and worked with around 15 'participants' each, for 2­12 months. They were based in third-sector homelessness residential and outreach services in Scotland and England. The Peer Navigators developed relationships with participants. They worked with (and often accompanied) them to access services, such as substance use treatment, health care, housing and welfare/benefits. The Peer Navigators had access to a small budget to pay for essentials, including food and bus fares. The relationship between the Peer Navigators and participants was most important, so the Peer Navigators spent time getting to know and listening to them. The aim was to understand if this intervention could be delivered to individuals experiencing these challenges. This study was not designed to know if the intervention worked; a larger study is needed for that. Despite some challenges, the participants were able to make positive changes to their lives, and they valued working with their Peer Navigator. The Peer Navigators enjoyed their roles and staff generally supported the intervention. The next step is to conduct more research to assess if this intervention can make a difference.

Assessing the feasibility, acceptability and accessibility of a peer-delivered intervention to reduce harm and improve the well-being of people who experience homelessness with problem substance use: the SHARPS study.

BACKGROUND: For people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use, access to appropriate services can be challenging. There is evidence that the development of trusting relationships with non-judgemental staff can facilitate service engagement. Peer-delivered approaches show particular promise, but the evidence base is still developing. METHODS: The study used mixed methods to assess the feasibility, acceptability and accessibility of a peer-delivered, relational intervention to reduce harms and improve health/well-being, quality of life and social functioning, for people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use. Four Peer Navigators were employed to support individuals (n = 68 total, intervention participants). They were based in outreach services and hostels in Scotland and England. Qualitative interviews were conducted with intervention participants, Peer Navigators and staff in services, and observations were conducted in all settings. Quantitative outcomes relating to participants' substance use, physical and mental health, and quality of the Peer Navigator relationship, were measured via a 'holistic health check' with six questionnaires completed at two time-points. RESULTS: The intervention was found to be acceptable to, and feasible and accessible for, participants, Peer Navigators, and service staff. Participants reported improvements to service engagement, and feeling more equipped to access services independently. The lived experience of the Peer Navigators was highlighted as particularly helpful, enabling trusting, authentic, and meaningful relationships to be developed. Some challenges were experienced in relation to the 'fit' of the intervention within some settings. Among participants there were reductions in drug use and risky injecting practices. There were increases in the number of participants receiving opioid substitution therapy. Overall, the intervention was positively received, with collective recognition that the intervention was unique and highly valuable. While most of the measures chosen for the holistic health check were found to be suitable for this population, they should be streamlined to avoid duplication and participant burden. CONCLUSIONS: The study established that a peer-delivered, relational harm reduction intervention is acceptable to, and feasible and accessible for, people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use. While the study was not outcomes-focused, participants did experience a range of positive outcomes. A full randomised controlled trial is now required to assess intervention effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study registered with ISRCTN: 15900054.

Accident and emergency department attendance rates of people experiencing homelessness by GP registration: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness are known to have complex health needs and to be high users of hospital accident and emergency (A&E) departments. It is unclear whether access to a day-time specialist homeless medical practice, as opposed to routine general practice, influences A&E attendance rates. AIM: This study investigated whether registration with a specialist homeless service would alter A&E attendance rates in a single geographical region in Scotland. DESIGN & SETTING: A health board area with a specialist service for people experiencing homelessness was selected. Data were obtained from the hospital records of 4408 A&E attendances by people experiencing homelessness at NHS Lothian (based on a broad definition of homelessness and including those in temporary accommodation) between January 2015 and July 2017. METHOD: The attendances were compared between people registered with a specialist service and those registered with a mainstream GP. RESULTS: The reasons for attendance and urgency of attendance were broadly similar between the two groups. Repeat attendance was similarly high in both groups. Almost 70% in both groups attended with problems deemed urgent, very urgent, or requiring immediate resuscitation. The patients registered with the specialist homeless service were more likely to be older and male; however, this did not affect the frequency of attendance. CONCLUSION: People experiencing homelessness attending A&E mainly do so for urgent or very urgent problems. This was not related to the type of day-time primary care service they had access to. Strategies to reduce attendances, such as out-of-hours mobile medical units, should be explored.

Comparing the Impact of Primary Care Practice Design in Two Inner City UK Homelessness Services.

Background: Specialist homeless primary health care services in the United Kingdom have arisen from the need for bespoke approaches to providing health care for people experiencing homelessness but descriptions of the design characteristics of homeless health services together with associated long-term condition (LTC) prevalence, health care utilization, and prescribing remain unexplored, thereby limiting our understanding of potential impact of service configuration on outcomes. Aim: Description of specialist homeless general practitioner services in Glasgow and Edinburgh, in terms of practice design (staff, skill mix, practice systems of registration, and follow-up); and exploration of the potential impact of differences on LTC prevalence, health care utilization, and prescribing. Method: Patient data were collected from computerized general practitioner records in Glasgow (2015, n = 133) and Edinburgh (2016, n = 150). Homeless health service configuration and anonymized patient data, including demographics, LTCs service utilization, and prescribing were summarized and compared. Results: Marked differences in infrastructure emerged between 2 practices, including the patient registration process, segmentation versus integration of services, recording systems, and the availability of staff expertise. Patient characteristics differed in terms of LTC diagnoses, health care utilization and prescribing. Higher rates of recorded mental health and addiction problems were found in Edinburgh, as well as higher rates of physical LTCs, for example, cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. There were significantly higher rates of consultations with nurses and other staff in Edinburgh, although more patients had consultations with pharmacists in Glasgow. Medication adherence was low in both cohorts, and attendance at referral appointments was particularly poor in Glasgow. Conclusion: Service design and professional skill mix influence recording of LTCs, service uptake, and identification and management of health conditions. Service configuration, professional skill mix, and resources may profoundly affect diagnoses, utilization of health care, and prescribing. Attention to homeless service design is important when providing care to this disadvantaged patient group.

Supporting Harm Reduction through Peer Support (SHARPS): testing the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-delivered, relational intervention for people with problem substance use who are homeless, to improve health outcomes, quality of life and social functioning and reduce harms: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: While people who are homeless often experience poor mental and physical health and problem substance use, getting access to appropriate services can be challenging. The development of trusting relationships with non-judgemental staff can facilitate initial and sustained engagement with health and wider support services. Peer-delivered approaches seem to have particular promise, but there is limited evidence regarding peer interventions that are both acceptable to, and effective for, people who are homeless and using drugs and/or alcohol. In the proposed study, we will develop and test the use of a peer-to-peer relational intervention with people experiencing homelessness. Drawing on the concept of psychologically informed environments, it will focus on building trusting and supportive relationships and providing practical elements of support such as access to primary care, treatment and housing options. METHODS: A mixed-method feasibility study with concurrent process evaluation will be conducted to explore the feasibility and acceptability of a peer-delivered, relational intervention for people with problem substance use who are homeless. Peer Navigators will be based in homelessness outreach and residential services in Scotland and England. Peer Navigators will work with a small number of participants for up to 12 months providing both practical and emotional support. The sample size for the intervention is 60. Those receiving the intervention must be currently homeless or at risk of homelessness, over the age of 18 years and self-report alcohol/drug problems. A holistic health check will be conducted in the first few months of the intervention and repeated towards the end. Health checks will be conducted by a researcher in the service where the Peer Navigator is based. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with intervention participants and staff in both intervention and standard care settings, and all Peer Navigators, will be conducted to explore their experiences with the intervention. Non-participant observation will be conducted in intervention and standard care sites to document similarities and differences between care pathways. DISCUSSION: The SHARPS study will provide evidence regarding whether a peer-delivered harm reduction intervention is feasible and acceptable to people experiencing homelessness and problem substance use in order to develop a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SRCTN registry ISRCTN15900054, protocol version 1.3, March 12, 2018.

Hepatitis B vaccination and injecting drug users.

This study seeks to test the feasibility of vaccinating injecting drug users for hepatitis B in primary care and to identify predictors of poor immune response. Two hundred and seventy-five injecting drug users were identified from the case notes of a large general practice in an area of high multiple deprivation in northwest Edinburgh and, where appropriate, offered hepatitis B vaccination followed by a post-vaccination serological test. We concluded that hepatitis B vaccination of drug users in primary care is both feasible and effective. This study was unable to identify a group at risk of vaccine failure, however, it found post-vaccination serological testing to be problematic and potentially misleading. Therefore, we would not recommend its routine use in a primary care setting. Significantly, prolonged primary courses were not associated with reduced efficacy. The findings indicate that an appropriate vaccination schedule for primary care should be flexible to maximise compliance.

Changing patterns in causes of death in a cohort of injecting drug users, 1980-2001.

BACKGROUND: High mortality among drug users has been widely recognized. This study investigates, in a large family practice of 10 000 patients in Edinburgh, Scotland, whether there has been a change in causes of mortality over time. Patients known to have ever injected drugs were recruited into a cohort study from 1980 until 2001. METHODS: Death certificates and clinical notes were scrutinized and data relating to demographic features, drug use, and causes of death were recorded. RESULTS: Of 667 patients, there were 153 deaths at follow-up (110 men and 43 women). Average annual mortality rate was 2.3%. Death rate peaked in the early to mid-1990s, reflecting the development of advanced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) from the early epidemic in 1982-1984 and the onset of the effect of antiviral chemotherapy. Drug deaths and suicide were the same in both sexes but tended to occur in younger subjects. Principal cause of death was overdose in the early years and HIV/AIDS in later years. Toward the close of the study period, hepatitis C emerged as a cause of death. CONCLUSIONS: Injecting drug users have a very high risk of mortality. Infectious diseases from nonsterile injecting are the most obvious preventable cause of death. Use of death certificate information alone is inaccurate in analyzing drug-related deaths and greatly underestimates the full impact of the HIV epidemic. This study provides some of the most convincing evidence so far that harm minimization, in its broadest sense, is effective in reducing drug-related mortality.