"It's just a perfect storm": Exploring the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on overdose risk in British Columbia from the perspectives of people who use substances.

BACKGROUND: Despite the implementation and expansion of public health and harm reduction strategies aimed at preventing and reversing overdoses, rates of overdose-related events and fatalities continue to rise in British Columbia. The COVID-19 pandemic created a second, concurrent public health emergency that further exacerbated the illicit drug toxicity crisis, reinforced existing social inequities and vulnerabilities, and highlighted the precariousness of systems in place that are meant to protect the health of communities. By exploring the perspectives of people with recent experience of illicit substance use, this study sought to characterize how the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health measures influenced risk and protective factors related to unintentional overdose by altering the environment in which people live and use substances, influencing the ability of people who use substances to be safe and well. METHODS: One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted by phone or in-person with people who use illicit substances (n = 62) across the province. Thematic analysis was performed to identify factors shaping the overdose risk environment. RESULTS: Participants pointed to factors that increased risk of overdose, including: [1] physical distancing measures that created social and physical isolation and led to more substance use alone without bystanders nearby able to respond in the event of an emergency; [2] early drug price spikes and supply chain issues that created inconsistencies in drug availability; [3] increasing toxicity and impurities in unregulated substances; [4] restriction of harm reduction services and supply distribution sites; and [5] additional burden placed on peer workers on the frontlines of the illicit drug toxicity crisis. Despite these challenges, participants highlighted factors that protected against overdose and substance-related harm, including the emergence of new programs, the resiliency of communities of people who use substances who expanded their outreach efforts, the existence of established social relationships, and the ways that individuals consistently prioritized overdose response over concerns about COVID-19 transmission to care for one another. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study illustrate the complex contextual factors that shape overdose risk and highlight the importance of ensuring that the needs of people who use substances are addressed in future public health emergency responses.

Community partner perspectives on the implementation of a novel safer supply program in Canada: a qualitative study of the MySafe Project.

BACKGROUND: The adulteration of the illicit drug supply with fentanyl and its analogues is driving the ongoing overdose crisis in North America. While various harm reduction interventions address overdose-related risks, there is growing interest in safer supply programs, including the MySafe Project which utilizes a biometric dispensing machine that provides pharmaceutical opioid alternatives to the toxic drug supply. However, the experiences and perspectives of professional community partners on program implementation remain unexplored. This study aims to examine professional community partner perspectives on the feasibility, as well as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the MySafe program. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 professional community partners involved in program implementation across four pilot locations in Canada. Thematic analysis of interviews focused on perspectives on safer supply, barriers and facilitators faced during program implementation, and recommendations to inform future scale-up of low-barrier safer supply models across Canada. RESULTS: Participants identified a variety of barriers, including the dependence on clinician buy-in, coupled with regulatory and logistical constraints. In addition, some participants perceived hydromorphone to be an inadequate substitute to the increasingly toxic street opioid supply. Lastly, technical difficulties were described as barriers to service uptake and delivery. Conversely, having political and community buy-in, availability of wrap-around services, and collaborative communication from the MySafe team served as facilitators to program implementation. Though community partners preferred establishing MySafe machines into existing community organizations, they also discussed benefits of housing-based MySafe programs. The potential role of this program in mid-sized to rural cities was also emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: To address the overdose crisis, there is an urgent need to implement and evaluate novel solutions that address supply drivers of crisis. Community partner-informed research plays an integral role in ensuring program acceptability and proper implementation. Our findings identify current gaps and facilitators underlying the efficacy of one such model, together with future directions for improvement. Participant recommendations included a diversification of medications offered and types of locations for MySafe programs, a streamlined national approach to prescribing guidelines coupled with more robust training for healthcare professionals, and an emphasis on service delivery within an integrated services model. Our findings underscore a potential gap between the goals of healthcare providers in ensuring comprehensive care and the necessity for low-barrier models such as MySafe that can function both within and outside of integrated service models.

Moving towards a continuum of safer supply options for people who use drugs: A qualitative study exploring national perspectives on safer supply among professional stakeholders in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Novel public health interventions are needed to address the toxic drug supply and meet the needs of people who use drugs amidst the overdose crisis. Safer supply - low-barrier distribution of pharmaceutical grade substances - has been implemented in some jurisdictions to provide safer alternatives to the unregulated drug supply, yet no studies to date have explored professional stakeholder perspectives on this approach. METHODS: We used purposive sampling to recruit professional stakeholders (n = 17) from four locations in British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, including program managers, executive directors, political and health authority representatives, and healthcare providers involved in the design, implementation, and/or operation of safer supply programs in their communities. Semi-structured, one-to-one interviews were conducted, and interview data were coded and analyzed using thematic analyses. RESULTS: Participants defined safer supply as low-barrier access to substances of known quality and quantity, offered on a continuum from prescribed to a legal, regulated supply, and focused on upholding autonomy and liberation of people who use drugs. Stakeholders expressed support for safer supply but explained that current iterations do not meet the needs of all people who use drugs and that implementation is limited by a lack of willing prescribers, stigma towards people who use drugs, and precarity of harm reduction programs to political ideology. Stakeholders expressed strong support for wider-reaching approaches such as decriminalization, legalization, and regulation of substances as a way to fully realize a continuum of safer supply, directly address the overdose crisis and toxic drug supply, and ensure equity of access nationally. CONCLUSION: The results of this study highlight the need for innovative strategies to address the overdose crisis and that safer supply has the potential to benefit certain people who use drugs. A one-size-fits-all approach is not sufficient and the perspectives of professional stakeholders should be considered alongside those of people who use drugs when designing and implementing future safer supply.

Human rights, public health and COVID-19 in Canada.

Faced with the extraordinary global public health crisis of COVID-19, governments across Canada must decide, often with limited and imperfect evidence, how to implement measures to reduce its spread. Drawing on a health and human rights framework, this commentary explores several features of the Canadian response to date that raise human rights concerns. Our discussion focuses on criminal law, fines, data collection, and so-called snitch lines. We argue that the approach of governmental and public health authorities must be grounded in the best available scientific evidence and align with human rights standards. Our aim is to encourage dialogue within the public health community in Canada about the importance of human rights-based responses to COVID-19.

RéSUMé: Face à la crise de santé publique sans précédent que représente la COVID-19 à l'échelle mondiale, les gouvernements des provinces et territoires du Canada doivent décider, souvent en se fondant sur des preuves limitées et imparfaites, comment mettre en œuvre des mesures pour réduire sa propagation. En s'appuyant sur un cadre de travail relatif à la santé et aux droits de la personne, cette analyse explore plusieurs éléments de la réponse canadienne apportée à ce jour qui soulèvent des préoccupations en matière de droits de la personne. Notre analyse porte en particulier sur le droit criminel, les amendes, la collecte de données et ce qu'on appelle les « lignes de dénonciation ¼. Nous estimons que l'approche des autorités gouvernementales et de santé publique doit être fondée sur les preuves scientifiques disponibles les plus solides et s'aligner sur les normes en matière de droits de la personne. Nous avons pour objectif d'encourager le dialogue au sein de la communauté du secteur de la santé publique au Canada sur l'importance des réponses à la COVID-19 fondées sur les droits de la personne.

'It's our safe sanctuary': Experiences of using an unsanctioned overdose prevention site in Toronto, Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Overdose prevention sites (OPSs) are spaces where people can consume drugs under the supervision of trained volunteers or staff and receive help in the event of an overdose. Unsanctioned OPSs are a grassroots response to the current opioid crisis in Canada. METHODS: We used rapid evaluation methods to study the experiences of 30 individuals accessing the smoking and injection services at the first unsanctioned OPS in Toronto, Ontario using semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using an applied thematic analysis approach to identify emergent themes related to service user experiences, characteristics of the risk environment, and recommended changes to the service model. RESULTS: The OPS represented a safe sanctuary and brought a sense of belonging to a community that often experiences discrimination. Valued aspects included: shelter; protection from violence; safety from overdoses; free equipment; information about health and social services; food and beverages; and socializing and connecting with others. Integrating peer workers in the design and delivery of services encouraged service users to visit the site. The OPS changed the risk environment by: providing access to the first supervised smoking service in Toronto; having few explicit rules and a communal approach to making new rules; allowing assisted injection, and negotiating with police to allow people to access the site with minimal contact. Service users noted the need to ensure a safe space for women and recommended extended hours of operation and moving to a more permanent space with heat and lighting for both smoking and injecting drugs. CONCLUSION: The unsanctioned OPS in Toronto served an important role in defining new, community-led, flexible responses to opioid overdose-related deaths at a time of markedly increasing mortality. Providing harm reduction services in diverse settings and expanding services to include smoking and assisted injection may increase access for marginalized people who use drugs.