Safer Consumption Services: Controversy Still Dogs a Life Saving Service

Despite the pragmatic nature of harm reduction programs, and their demonstrated ability to save lives, controversy still dogs efforts to scale-up harm reduction. One of the most misunderstood and controversial initiatives are safer consumption services (SCS).

In the last 20 years, SCS services (sometimes also known as safer injection services (SIS) have been integrated into drug treatment and harm reduction programs in Western Europe, Australia, and Canada. The focus of these services is facilitating people to safely consume pre-obtained drugs with sterile equipment. These services can be offered using a number of models including under the supervision of health professionals or as autonomous services operated by groups of people who use drugs.

The objectives of SCS include preventing the transmission of blood-borne infections such as HIV and hepatitis C; improving access to health care services for the most marginalized groups of people who use drugs; improving basic health and well-being; contributing to the safety and quality of communities; and reducing the impact of open drug scenes on communities.

Safer consumption services grew out of the recognition that low-threshold, easily accessible programs to reduce the incidence of blood-borne pathogens were effective and cost-effective. This was the conclusion of over 30 research studies on Vancouver’s own supervised injection site known as Insite.

Research has found that SIS services:

  • are actively used by people who inject drugs including people at higher risk of harm;
  • reduce overdose deaths — no deaths have occurred at Insite since its inception;
  • reduce behaviours such as the use of shared needles which can lead to HIV and Hep C infection;
  • reduce other unsafe injection practices and encourage the use of sterile swabs, water and safe needle disposal. Users of these services are more likely to report changes to their injecting practices such as less rushed injecting;
  • increase the use of detox and other treatment services. For example, the opening of Insite in Vancouver was associated with a 30% increase in the use of detoxification services and in Sydney, Australia, more than 9500 referrals to health and social services have been made since the service opened, half of which were for addiction treatment;
  • are cost-effective. Insite prevents 35 new cases of HIV and 3 deaths a year providing a societal benefit of approximately $6 million per year. Research estimates that in Sydney, Australia, only 0.8 of a life per year would need to be saved for the service to be cost-neutral;
  • reduce public drug use; and reduce the amount of publically discarded injection equipment; and
  • do not cause an increase in crime.

Professional groups such as the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Public Health Physicians of Canada, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, and the Urban Public Health Network have expressed their support for SCS.

Sounds like it’s time to move beyond controversy and get on with creating more of these life-saving programs!

*Please note that the material presented here does not necessarily imply endorsement or agreement by individuals at the Centre for Addictions Research of BC

Image

 

Author: Connie Carter, Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition

What are Best Practices for Harm Reduction in Canada?

Harm reduction programs need access to the most up-to-date evidence, resources, and well-trained staff if they are to ensure delivery of high-quality services. However, many programs in communities across Canada are often very busy, have limited resources, and struggle to meet demand. Although service providers might desire to know about the newest scientific evidence, realistically how many have the time to search this out and determine the quality and transferability of the evidence to their programs?

We came together as a group of service providers, service users, and researchers from across Canada to make evidence readily available and applicable to the everyday operation of programs that provide service to people who use drugs and are at risk for HIV, hepatitis C (HCV), hepatitis B (HBV), and other harms. In July 2013, we launched the first installment of a comprehensive harm reduction best practices document with a national scope.

This new resource provides a quick overview of best practices and program policies to reduce harms. For example, we know from studies in Canada and internationally that when people who inject drugs have problems accessing clean needles, they are more likely to reuse needles, including those previously used by someone else, which puts them at risk of HIV, HCV, and numerous other harms, such as abscesses and vein problems. Therefore, we recommend that programs distribute needles in the quantities requested by client without limits. To reduce the availability of used equipment, we recommend that programs provide multiple, convenient locations for disposal.

If a new needle and syringe is recommended for each injection, is the same true for safer crack cocaine smoking equipment? After considering the limited availability of scientific evidence about disease transmission and product safety information, our group recommends that crack cocaine smoking equipment be considered unsafe and in need of replacement when: the pipe and/or mouthpiece has been used by someone else; the pipe is scratched, chipped or cracked; the mouthpiece is burnt; and/or the screen has shrunk and become loose in the stem.

Overdose is the most common cause of death among heroin and other opioid users. Significant improvements in overdose prevention are possible if we offer good education and training programs for clients, including how to respond to an overdose. Training should include recognising signs of overdose, knowing when to call 911, how to respond when witnessing someone else overdose, and how to use naloxone, a drug that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose. We also recommend assessment of the feasibility and acceptability of naloxone distribution programs. 

Many more recommendations are contained in the document and we invite readers to check it out and tell us what you think. Our team is midway through development of a second installment, set to release in late 2014, of new best practice recommendations. That installment will focus on recommendations related to program models, testing for HIV, HCV, and HBV, vaccinations, skin and vein care, referrals and counselling, relationships with police, and more. So stay tuned!

*Please note that the material presented here does not necessarily imply endorsement or agreement by individuals at the Centre for Addictions Research of BC

ImageImage

Authors: Dr. Carol Strike (left) and Dr. Tara Marie Watson (right), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto