Food insecurity in high-risk rural communities before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: To perform a geospatial analysis of food insecurity in a rural county known to have poor health outcomes and assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: In 2020, we mailed a comprehensive cross-sectional survey to all households in Sullivan County, a rural county with the second-worst health outcomes among all counties in New York State. Surveys of households included validated food insecurity screening questions. Questions were asked in reference to 2019, prior to the pandemic, and for 2020, in the first year of the pandemic. Respondents also responded to demographic questions. Raking adjustments were performed using age, sex, race/ethnicity, and health insurance strata to mitigate non-response bias. To identify significant hotspots of food insecurity within the county, we also performed geospatial analysis. Findings: From the 28,284 households surveyed, 20% of households responded. Of 4725 survey respondents, 26% of households reported experiencing food insecurity in 2019, and in 2020, this proportion increased to 35%. In 2020, 58% of Black and Hispanic households reported experiencing food insecurity. Food insecurity in 2020 was also present in 58% of unmarried households with children and in 64% of households insured by Medicaid. The geospatial analyses revealed that hotspots of food insecurity were primarily located in or near more urban areas of the rural county. Conclusions: Our countywide health survey in a high-risk rural county identified significant increases of food insecurity in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite national statistics reporting a stable rate. Responses to future crises should include targeted interventions to bolster food security among vulnerable rural populations.

Associations Between Different Types of Housing Insecurity and Future Emergency Department Use Among a Cohort of Emergency Department Patients.

Housing insecurity can take multiple forms, such as unaffordability, crowding, forced moves, multiple moves, and homelessness. Existing research has linked homelessness to increased emergency department (ED) use, but gaps remain in understanding the relationship between different types of housing insecurity and ED use. In this study, we examined the association between different types of housing insecurity, including detailed measures of homelessness, and future ED use among a cohort of patients initially seen in an urban safety-net hospital ED in the United States between November 2016 and January 2018. We found that homelessness was associated with a higher mean number of ED visits in the year post-baseline. Other measures of housing insecurity (unaffordability, crowding, forced moves, and multiple moves) were not associated with greater ED use in the year post-baseline in multivariable models. We also found that only specific types of homelessness, primarily unsheltered homelessness, were associated with increased ED use.

The POP (Permanent Supportive Housing Overdose Prevention) Study: protocol for a hybrid type 3 stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Permanent supportive housing (PSH)-subsidized housing paired with support services such as case management-is a key part of national strategic plans to end homelessness. PSH tenants face high overdose risk due to a confluence of individual and environmental risk factors, yet little research has examined overdose prevention in PSH. METHODS: We describe the protocol for a hybrid type 3 stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of overdose prevention practice implementation in PSH. We adapted evidence-based overdose prevention practices and implementation strategies for PSH using input from stakeholder focus groups. The trial will include 20 PSH buildings (with building size ranging from 20 to over 150 tenants) across New York City and New York's Capital Region. Buildings will be randomized to one of four 6-month intervention waves during which they will receive a package of implementation support including training in using a PSH Overdose Prevention (POP) Toolkit, time-limited practice facilitation, and learning collaboratives delivered to staff and tenant implementation champions appointed by each building. The primary outcome is building-level fidelity to a defined list of overdose prevention practices. Secondary and exploratory implementation and effectiveness outcomes will be examined using PSH staff and tenant survey questionnaires, and analysis of tenant Medicaid data. We will explore factors related to implementation success, including barriers and facilitators, using qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. The project is being conducted through an academic-community partnership, and an Advisory Board including PSH tenants and other key stakeholders will be engaged in all stages of the project. DISCUSSION: We describe the protocol for a hybrid type 3 stepped-wedge cluster RCT of overdose prevention practice implementation in PSH. This study will be the first controlled trial of overdose prevention implementation in PSH settings. The research will make a significant impact by testing and informing future implementation strategies to prevent overdose for a population at particularly high risk for overdose mortality. Findings from this PSH-focused research are expected to be broadly applicable to other housing settings and settings serving people experiencing homelessness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05786222 , registered 27 March 2023.

2021 SAEM Consensus Conference Proceedings: Research Priorities for Implementing Emergency Department Screening for Social Risks and Needs.

INTRODUCTION: Despite literature on a variety of social risks and needs screening interventions in emergency department (ED) settings, there is no universally accepted or evidence-based process for conducting such interventions. Many factors hamper or promote implementation of social risks and needs screening in the ED, but the relative impact of these factors and how best to mitigate/leverage them is unknown. METHODS: Drawing on an extensive literature review, expert assessment, and feedback from participants in the 2021 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference through moderated discussions and follow-up surveys, we identified research gaps and rated research priorities for implementing screening for social risks and needs in the ED. We identified three main knowledge gaps: 1) screening implementation mechanics; 2) outreach and engagement with communities; and 3) addressing barriers and leveraging facilitators to screening. Within these gaps, we identified 12 high-priority research questions as well as research methods for future studies. RESULTS: Consensus Conference participants broadly agreed that social risks and needs screening is generally acceptable to patients and clinicians and feasible in an ED setting. Our literature review and conference discussion identified several research gaps in the specific mechanics of screening implementation, including screening and referral team composition, workflow, and use of technology. Discussions also highlighted a need for more collaboration with stakeholders in screening design and implementation. Additionally, discussions identified the need for studies using adaptive designs or hybrid effectiveness-implementation models to test multiple strategies for implementation and sustainability. CONCLUSION: Through a robust consensus process we developed an actionable research agenda for implementing social risks and needs screening in EDs. Future work in this area should use implementation science frameworks and research best practices to further develop and refine ED screening for social risks and needs and to address barriers as well as leverage facilitators to such screening.

Proceedings from the 2021 SAEM Consensus Conference: Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Social Risks and Needs Identified in Emergency Department Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (ED) function as a health and social safety net, regularly taking care of patients with high social risk and need. Few studies have examined ED-based interventions for social risk and need. METHODS: Focusing on ED-based interventions, we identified initial research gaps and priorities in the ED using a literature review, topic expert feedback, and consensus-building. Research gaps and priorities were further refined based on moderated, scripted discussions and survey feedback during the 2021 SAEM Consensus Conference. Using these methods, we derived six priorities based on three identified gaps in ED-based social risks and needs interventions: 1) assessment of ED-based interventions; 2) intervention implementation in the ED environment; and 3) intercommunication between patients, EDs, and medical and social systems. RESULTS: Using these methods, we derived six priorities based on three identified gaps in ED-based social risks and needs interventions: 1) assessment of ED-based interventions, 2) intervention implementation in the ED environment, and 3) intercommunication between patients, EDs, and medical and social systems. Assessing intervention effectiveness through patient-centered outcome and risk reduction measures should be high priorities in the future. Also noted was the need to study methods of integrating interventions into the ED environment and to increase collaboration between EDs and their larger health systems, community partners, social services, and local government. CONCLUSION: The identified research gaps and priorities offer guidance for future work to establish effective interventions and build relationships with community health and social systems to address social risks and needs, thereby improving the health of our patients.

Study protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of a peer navigator intervention for emergency department patients with nonfatal opioid overdose.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) after a nonfatal opioid-involved overdose are at high risk for future overdose and death. Responding to this risk, the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene operates the Relay initiative, which dispatches trained peer "Wellness Advocates" to meet patients in the ED after a suspected opioid-involved overdose and follow them for up to 90 days to provide support, education, referrals to treatment, and other resources using a harm reduction framework. METHODS: In this article, we describe the protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of Relay. Study participants are recruited from four NYC EDs and are randomized to receive the Relay intervention or site-directed care (the control arm). Outcomes are assessed through survey questionnaires conducted at 1-, 3-, and 6-months after the baseline visit, as well as through administrative health data. The primary outcome is the number of opioid-related adverse events, including any opioid-involved overdose or any other substance use-related ED visit, in the 12 months post-baseline. Secondary and exploratory outcomes will also be analyzed, as well as hypothesized mediators and moderators of Relay program effectiveness. CONCLUSION: We present the protocol for a multisite randomized controlled trial of a peer-delivered OD prevention intervention in EDs. We describe how the study was designed to minimize disruption to routine ED operations, and how the study was implemented and adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT04317053].

An Unconditional Cash Transfer Program for Low-Income New Yorkers Affected by COVID-19.

Early in the pandemic, New York City's public hospital system partnered with multiple philanthropic foundations to offer an unconditional cash transfer program for low-income New Yorkers affected by COVID-19. The $1000 cash transfers were designed to help people meet their most immediate health and social needs and were incorporated into healthcare delivery and contact tracing workflows as a response to the public health emergency. To better understand program recipients' experiences, researchers conducted 150 telephone surveys with randomly sampled cash transfer recipients and 20 in-depth qualitative interviews with purposefully sampled survey participants. Survey participants were predominantly Latinx (87%) and women (65%). The most common reported uses of the $1000 were food and rent. Most participants (79%) reported that without the $1000 cash transfer they would have had difficulty paying for basic expenses or making ends meet, with specific positive effects reported related to food, housing, and ability to work. The majority of survey participants reported that receiving the cash assistance somewhat or greatly improved their physical health (83%) and mental health (89%). Qualitative interview results generally supported the survey findings.

2021 SAEM Consensus Conference Proceedings: Research Priorities for Developing Emergency Department Screening Tools for Social Risks and Needs.

INTRODUCTION: The Emergency Department (ED) acts as a safety net for our healthcare system. While studies have shown increased prevalence of social risks and needs among ED patients, there are many outstanding questions about the validity and use of social risks and needs screening tools in the ED setting. METHODS: In this paper, we present research gaps and priorities pertaining to social risks and needs screening tools used in the ED, identified through a consensus approach informed by literature review and external expert feedback as part of the 2021 SAEM Consensus Conference -- From Bedside to Policy: Advancing Social Emergency Medicine and Population Health. RESULTS: Four overarching research gaps were identified: (1) Defining the purpose and ethical implications of ED-based screening; (2) Identifying domains of social risks and needs; (3) Developing and validating screening tools; and (4) Defining the patient population and type of screening performed. Furthermore, the following research questions were determined to be of highest priority: (1) What screening tools should be used to identify social risks and needs? (2) Should individual EDs use a national standard screening tools or customized screening tools? (3) What are the most prevalent social risks and needs in the ED? and (4) Which social risks and needs are most amenable to intervention in the ED setting? CONCLUSION: Answering these research questions will facilitate the use of evidence-based social risks and needs screening tools that address knowledge gaps and improve the health of our communities by better understanding the underlying determinants contributing to their presentation and health outcomes.

ED-Home: Pilot feasibility study of a targeted homelessness prevention intervention for emergency department patients with drug or unhealthy alcohol use.

BACKGROUND: Housing insecurity is prevalent among emergency department (ED) patients. Despite a surge of interest in screening for patients' social needs including housing insecurity, little research has examined ED social needs interventions. We worked together with government and community partners to develop and pilot test a homelessness prevention intervention targeted to ED patients with drug or unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS: We approached randomly sampled patients at an urban public hospital ED, May to August 2019. Adult patients were eligible if they were medically stable, not incarcerated, spoke English, had unhealthy alcohol or any drug use, and were not currently homeless but screened positive for risk of future homelessness using a previously developed risk screening tool. Participants received a three-part intervention: (1) brief counseling and referral to treatment for substance use delivered through a preexisting ED program; (2) referral to Homebase, an evidence-based community homelessness prevention program; and (3) up to three troubleshooting phone calls by study staff. Participants completed surveys at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: Of 2183 patients screened, 51 were eligible and 40 (78.4%) participated; one later withdrew, leaving 39 participants. Participants were diverse in age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Of the 32 participants reached at 6 months, most said it was very or extremely helpful to talk to someone about their housing situation (n = 23, 71.9%) at the baseline ED visit. Thirteen (40.6%) said their housing situation had improved in the past 6 months and 16 (50.0%) said it had not changed. Twenty participants (62.5%) had made contact with a Homebase office. Participants shared ideas of how to improve the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot intervention was feasible and well received by participants though it required a large amount of screening to identify potentially eligible patients. Our findings will inform a larger future trial and may be informative for others seeking to develop similar interventions.

The Perceived Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Social Needs of Adult Emergency Department Patients.

Objectives: We aim to assess the influence of COVID-19 on the social needs of emergency department (ED) patients, and assess patients' access to social services. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 175 purposively sampled adult ED patients. Results: Approximately half of participants stated that COVID-19 negatively impacted their social needs with statistically significant differences observed for race, ethnicity, and insurance status. Many participants did not know of available social services, and a majority welcomed assistance from the ED. Conclusion: This study suggests that unmet social needs have risen because of COVID-19, and EDs may be positioned to identify and assist affected patients.

Performance of 2 Single-Item Screening Questions to Identify Future Homelessness Among Emergency Department Patients.

Importance: Despite increasing interest in assessing patient social needs in health care settings, there has been little research examining the performance of housing-related screening questions. Objective: To examine the performance of 2 single-item screening questions assessing emergency department (ED) patients' self-perceived risk of future homelessness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted among a randomly selected sample of adult ED patients from 2016 to 2017 in a public hospital ED in New York City. Data were analyzed from September 2019 through October 2021. Exposures: Responses on patient surveys conducted at the baseline ED visit for 2 single-item screening questions on self-perceived risk for future housing instability and homelessness were collected. One question asked patients if they were worried about having stable housing in the next 2 months, and the other question asked them to rate the likelihood that they would enter a homeless shelter in the next 6 months. Outcomes: Homeless shelter entry 2, 6, and 12 months after an ED visit, assessed using shelter administrative data in the study city, which was linked with participant baseline survey responses. Results: There were 1919 study participants (976 [51.0%] men and 931 [48.6%] women among 1915 individuals with gender data; 700 individuals aged 31-50 years [36.5%] among 1918 individuals with age data; 1126 Hispanic or Latinx individuals [59.0%], 368 non-Hispanic Black individuals [19.3%], and 225 non-Hispanic White individuals [11.8%] among 1908 individuals with race and ethnicity data). Within 2, 6, and 12 months of the ED visit, 45 patients (2.3%), 66 patients (3.4%), and 95 patients (5.0%) had entered shelter, respectively. For both single-item screening questions, participants who answered affirmatively had significantly higher likelihood of future shelter entry at each time point examined (eg, at 2 months: 31 participants responding yes [6.5%] vs 14 participants responding no [1.0%] to the question concerning being worried about having stable housing in the next 2 months). Sensitivity of the screening questions ranged from 0.27 to 0.69, specificity from 0.76 to 0.97, positive predictive value from 0.07 to 0.27, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve from 0.62 to 0.72. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that 2 single-item screening questions assessing ED patient self-perceived risk of future housing instability and homelessness had adequate to good performance in identifying risk for future shelter entry. Such single-item screening questions should be further tested before broad adoption.

Association of substance use characteristics and future homelessness among emergency department patients with drug use or unhealthy alcohol use: Results from a linked data longitudinal cohort analysis.

Background: Homelessness and substance use are intricately related, and both are prevalent among emergency department (ED) patients. This study examined the longitudinal association of substance use characteristics with future homeless shelter entry among ED patients with any drug use or unhealthy alcohol use. Methods: We present results from a longitudinal cohort study of public hospital ED patients who screened positive for drug use or unhealthy alcohol use and who were not homeless at their baseline (index) ED visit. The primary outcome was homeless shelter entry within 12 months of baseline, ascertained in city homeless shelter administrative data. Primary independent variables of interest were alcohol use severity (AUDIT), drug use severity (DAST-10), and types of drugs used, as reported on baseline survey questionnaires. Results: Analyses included 1,210 ED patients. By 12 months following the baseline ED visit, 114 (9.4%) had entered a homeless shelter. Among patients with the most severe problems related to drug use (DAST-10 score 9-10), 40.9% entered a shelter within 12 months. Past shelter use was the strongest predictor of future shelter entry; once adjusting for historic shelter use the relationship of AUDIT and DAST-10 scores with future shelter entry was no longer statistically significant in multivariable models. Conclusions: ED patients with past year drug use or unhealthy alcohol use had relatively high likelihood of future shelter entry. Risk for homelessness should be addressed in future interventions with this population. Findings illustrate the complexity of relationships between substance use and homelessness.

Mortality Among People Experiencing Homelessness in San Francisco During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: There has been recent media attention on the risk of excess mortality among homeless individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet data on these deaths are limited. Objectives: To quantify and describe deaths among people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare the characteristics of these deaths with those in prior years. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study tracking mortality among people experiencing homelessness from 2016 to 2021 in San Francisco, California. All deceased individuals who were homeless in San Francisco at the time of death and whose deaths were processed by the San Francisco Office of the Chief Medical Examiner were included. Data analysis was performed from August to October 2021. Exposure: Homelessness, based on homeless living status in an administrative database. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to understand annual trends in demographic characteristics, cause and manner of death (based on autopsy), substances present in toxicology reports, geographic distribution of deaths, and use of health and social services prior to death. Total estimated numbers of people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco were assessed through semiannual point-in-time counts. The 2021 point-in-time count was postponed owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: In San Francisco, there were 331 deaths among people experiencing homelessness in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (from March 17, 2020, to March 16, 2021). This number was more than double any number in previous years (eg, 128 deaths in 2016, 128 deaths in 2017, 135 deaths in 2018, and 147 deaths in 2019). Most individuals who died were male (268 of 331 [81%]). Acute drug toxicity was the most common cause of death in each year, followed by traumatic injury. COVID-19 was not listed as the primary cause of any deaths. The proportion of deaths involving fentanyl increased each year (present in 52% of toxicology reports in 2019 and 68% during the pandemic). Fewer decedents had contacts with health services in the year prior to their death during the pandemic than in prior years (13% used substance use disorder services compared with 20% in 2019). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the number of deaths among people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco increased markedly during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings may guide future interventions to reduce mortality among individuals experiencing homelessness.

Patient views on emergency department screening and interventions related to housing.

Objectives Emergency departments (EDs) serve as a health care "safety net" and may be uniquely suited to screening for and addressing patients' unmet social needs. We aimed to better understand patient perspectives on ED-based screening and interventions related to housing instability, as a step toward improving future efforts. Methods We present findings from a qualitative study using in-depth, one-on-one interviews with ED patients who had become homeless in the past 6 months. Qualitative interviewees were asked their thoughts on ED staff asking about and helping to address homelessness and housing issues. Interviews were professionally transcribed verbatim. Multiple coders identified interview text segments focused on ED-based housing screening and intervention, which were then independently analyzed thematically and discussed to reach consensus. Researchers also categorized each participant's overall opinion on ED housing screening and interventions as positive, neutral, or negative. Results Qualitative interviews were conducted with 31 patients. Four themes related to ED-based housing screening and interventions emerged: (1) patients generally welcome ED staff/providers asking about and assisting with their housing situation, with caveats around privacy and respect; (2) ED conversations about housing have potential benefits beyond addressing unmet housing needs; (3) patients may not consider the ED as a site to obtain help with housing; (4) patients' experiences navigating existing housing services can inform best approaches for the ED. Most participants expressed overall positive views of ED staff/providers asking patients about their housing situation. Conclusions Study participants generally felt positively about screening and interventions for housing in the ED. Insights from this study can inform future ED-based housing instability screening and interventions.

Development of a homelessness risk screening tool for emergency department patients.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a screening tool to identify emergency department (ED) patients at risk of entering a homeless shelter, which could inform targeting of interventions to prevent future homelessness episodes. DATA SOURCES: Linked data from (1) ED patient baseline questionnaires and (2) citywide administrative homeless shelter database. STUDY DESIGN: Stakeholder-informed predictive modeling utilizing ED patient questionnaires linked with prospective shelter administrative data. The outcome was shelter entry documented in administrative data within 6 months following the baseline ED visit. Exposures were responses to questions on homelessness risk factors from baseline questionnaires. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Research assistants completed questionnaires with randomly sampled ED patients who were medically stable, not in police/prison custody, and spoke English or Spanish. Questionnaires were linked to administrative data using deterministic and probabilistic matching. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 1993 ED patients who were not homeless at baseline, 5.6% entered a shelter in the next 6 months. A screening tool consisting of two measures of past shelter use and one of past criminal justice involvement had 83.0% sensitivity and 20.4% positive predictive value for future shelter entry. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the potential of using cross-sector data to improve hospital initiatives to address patients' social needs.

Social relationships, homelessness, and substance use among emergency department patients.

Background: Emergency department (ED) patients commonly experience both substance use and homelessness, and social relationships impact each in varied ways not fully captured by existing quantitative research. This qualitative study examines how social relationships can precipitate or ameliorate homelessness and the connection (if any) between substance use and social relationships among ED patients experiencing homelessness. Methods: As part of a broader study to develop ED-based homelessness prevention interventions, we conducted in-depth interviews with 25 ED patients who used alcohol or drugs and had recently become homeless. We asked patients about the relationship between their substance use and homelessness. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded line-by-line by investigators. Final codes formed the basis for thematic analysis through consensus discussions. Results: Social relationships emerged as focal points for understanding the four major themes related to the intersection of homelessness and substance use: (1) Substance use can create strain in relationships; (2) Help is there until it's not; (3) Social relationships can create challenges contributing to substance use; and (4) Reciprocal relationship of substance use and isolation. Sub-themes were also identified and described. Conclusions: The association between substance use and homelessness is multifaceted and social relationships are a complex factor linking the two. Social relationships are often critical for homelessness prevention, but they are impacted by and reciprocally affect substance use. ED-based substance use interventions should consider the high prevalence of homelessness and the impact of social relationships on the interaction between homelessness and substance use.

National trends in substance use treatment admissions for opioid use disorder among adults experiencing homelessness.

OBJECTIVE: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) have high rates of substance use, and homelessness may be an important driver of health disparities in the opioid overdose epidemic. However, few studies focus on homelessness among the opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment population. We examine national-level trends in substance use treatment admissions among PEH with OUD. METHODS: This study used data from first-time treatment admissions in the United States from the Treatment Episode Data Set: Admissions (TEDS-A) to examine characteristics and trends of adults experiencing homelessness who entered state-licensed substance use treatment programs for OUD from 2013 to 2017. We used chi-squared analyses to examine changes in characteristics of this population over time and logistic regression to assess characteristics associated with receipt of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among PEH. RESULTS: Among all adults with OUD entering specialty treatment from 2013 to 2017, 12.5% reported experiencing homelessness. Compared to individuals not experiencing homelessness, PEH were more likely to be male, inject opioids, use cocaine or methamphetamine, and enter into residential detoxification treatment. PEH were less likely to enter outpatient treatment or receive MOUD. From 2013 to 2017, significant increases occurred in the proportion of PEH who had co-occurring psychiatric problems and used methamphetamines. Over time, treatment type shifted significantly from residential detoxification to outpatient treatment. Receipt of MOUD increased among PEH over time (13.7% to 25.2%), but lagged behind increases among individuals not experiencing homelessness. Among PEH, being older was associated with receiving MOUD, while concurrent methamphetamine use [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.58, 0.69] and living in the southern United States (AOR 0.27; 95% CI 0.25, 0.30) were associated with not receiving MOUD. DISCUSSION: The proportion of PEH with OUD who receive medications as part of treatment increased over time, but three quarters of PEH entering treatment still do not receive this highest standard in evidence-based care. The sharp increase observed in concomitant methamphetamine use in this population is concerning and has implications for treatment.

Using a "Big Events" framework to understand emergency department use among women experiencing homelessness or housing instability in San Francisco during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic created a major public health crisis that disrupted economic systems, social networks and individual behaviors, which led to changes in patterns of health care use. Factors associated with emergency department (ED) visits during the pandemic among especially high-risk individuals are unknown. We used a "Big Events" approach, which considers major disruptions that create social instability, to investigate ED use in people experiencing homelessness or housing instability, many of whom use drugs. METHODS: Between July and December 2020, we conducted a community-based San Francisco study to compare homeless and unstably housed (HUH) women who did and did not use an ED during the first 10 months of the pandemic. RESULTS: Among 128 study participants, 34% had ≥1 ED visit during the pandemic. In adjusted analysis, factors significantly associated with ED use included experiencing homelessness, cocaine use and increased difficulties receiving drug use treatment during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: These findings build on the "Big Events" approach to considering risk pathways among people who use drugs. They suggest the importance of ensuring access to housing and low-barrier non-COVID health services, including drug treatment, alongside crisis management activities, to reduce the health impacts of public health crises.