Substance use care innovations during COVID-19: barriers and facilitators to the provision of safer supply at a toronto COVID-19 isolation and recovery site.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an urgent need to establish isolation spaces for people experiencing homelessness who were exposed to or had COVID-19. In response, community agencies and the City of Toronto opened COVID-19 isolation and recovery sites (CIRS) in March 2020. We sought to examine the provision of comprehensive substance use services offered to clients on-site to facilitate isolation, particularly the uptake of safer supply prescribing (prescription of pharmaceutical opioids and/or stimulants) as part of a spectrum of comprehensive harm reduction and addiction treatment interventions. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 25 clients and 25 staff (including peer, harm reduction, nursing and medical team members) from the CIRS in April-July 2021. Iterative and thematic analytic methods were used to identify key themes that emerged in the interview discussions. RESULTS: At the time of implementation of the CIRS, the provision of a safer supply of opioids and stimulants was a novel and somewhat controversial practice. Prescribed safer supply was integrated to address the high risk of overdose among clients needing to isolate due to COVID-19. The impact of responding to on-site overdoses and presence of harm reduction and peer teams helped clinical staff overcome hesitation to prescribing safer supply. Site-specific clinical guidance and substance use specialist consults were crucial tools in building capacity to provide safer supply. Staff members had varied perspectives on what constitutes 'evidence-based' practice in a rapidly changing, crisis situation. CONCLUSION: The urgency involved in intervening during a crisis enabled the adoption of prescribed safer supply, meeting the needs of people who use substances and assisting them to complete isolation periods, while also expanding what constitutes acceptable goals in the care of people who use drugs to include harm reduction approaches.

Screening for poverty and intervening in a primary care setting: an acceptability and feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: A movement is emerging to encourage health providers and health organizations to take action on the social determinants of health. However, few evidence-based interventions exist. Digital tools have not been examined in depth. OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability and feasibility of integrating, within routine primary care, screening for poverty and an online tool that helps identify financial benefits. METHODS: The setting was a Community Health Centre serving a large number of low-income individuals in Toronto, Canada. Physicians were encouraged to use the tool at every possible encounter during a 1-month period. A link to the tool was easily accessible, and reminder emails were circulated regularly. This mixed-methods study used a combination of pre-intervention and post-intervention surveys, focus groups and interviews. RESULTS: Thirteen physicians participated (81.25% of all) and represented a range of genders and years in practice. Physicians reported a strong awareness of the importance of identifying poverty as a health concern, but low confidence in their ability to address poverty. The tool was used with 63 patients over a 1-month period. Although screening and intervening on poverty is logistically challenging in regular workflows, online tools could assist patients and health providers identify financial benefits quickly. Future interventions should include more robust follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our study contributes to the evidence based on addressing the social determinants of health in clinical settings. Future approaches could involve routine screening, engaging other members of the team in intervening and following up, and better integration with the electronic health record.

An interprofessional urban health elective focused on the social determinants of health.

BACKGROUND: More than half of the world's population now lives in cities. Health professionals should understand how social factors and processes in urban spaces determine individual and population health. We report on lessons from an interprofessional urban health elective developed to focus on the social determinants of health (SDOH). METHODS: An interprofessional committee developed an urban health elective based in downtown Toronto. Course objectives included promoting collaboration to address SDOH, identifying barriers to care, accessing community-based resources, and learning to advocate at individual- and community-levels. RESULTS: Seventeen students from eight disciplines participated during the 2011-2012 academic year. Sessions were co-facilitated with community partners and community members identified as experts based on their personal experience. Topics included housing, income and food security, Indigenous communities in urban spaces, and advocacy. Students collaborated on self-directed projects, which ranged from literature reviews to policy briefs for government. Students particularly valued learning about community agencies and hearing from people with lived experience. CONCLUSION: The specific health challenges faced in urban settings can benefit from an interprofessional approach informed by the experiences and needs of patient communities. This elective was innovative in engaging students in interprofessional learning on how health and social agencies collaborate to tackle social determinants in urban spaces.

Implementation and impact of an online tool used in primary care to improve access to financial benefits for patients: a study protocol.

OBJECTIVES: Addressing the social determinants of health has been identified as crucial to reducing health inequities. However, few evidence-based interventions exist. This study emerges from an ongoing collaboration between physicians, researchers and a financial literacy organisation. Our study will answer the following: Is an online tool that improves access to financial benefits feasible and acceptable? Can such a tool be integrated into clinical workflow? What are patient perspectives on the tool and what is the short-term impact on access to benefits? METHODS: An advisory group made up of patients living on low incomes and representatives from community agencies supports this study. We will recruit three primary care sites in Toronto, Ontario and three in Winnipeg, Manitoba that serve low-income communities. We will introduce clinicians to screening for poverty and how benefits can increase income. Health providers will be encouraged to use the tool with any patient seen. The health provider and patient will complete the online tool together, generating a tailored list of benefits and resources to assist with obtaining these benefits. A brief survey on this experience will be administered to patients after they complete the tool, as well as a request to contact them in 1 month. Those who agree to be contacted will be interviewed on whether the intervention improved access to financial benefits. We will also administer an online survey to providers and conduct focus groups at each site. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Key ethical concerns include that patients may feel discomfort when being asked about their financial situation, may feel obliged to complete the tool and may have their expectations falsely raised about receiving benefits. Providers will be trained to address each of these concerns. We will share our findings with providers and policy-makers interested in addressing the social determinants of health within healthcare settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02959866. Registered 7 November 2016. Retrospectively registered. Pre-results.