학술논문
Feeling safer: effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of continuous pulse oximetry for people who smoke opioids at overdose prevention services in British Columbia, Canada
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Source
Harm Reduction Journal. February 20, 2024, Vol. 21 Issue 1
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1477-7517
Abstract
Author(s): Jessica Moe[sup.1,2], Tamara Chavez[sup.3], Charotte Marr[sup.4], Fred Cameron[sup.5], Damian Feldman-Kiss[sup.1], Yueqiao Elle Wang[sup.1], Jessica C. Xavier[sup.2,6], Zahra Mamdani[sup.7], Roy A. Purssell[sup.1,2], Amy Salmon[sup.8,9] and Jane A. Buxton[sup.2,9] Background Smoking [...]
Background Smoking is the most common mode of unregulated opioid consumption overall and implicated in fatal overdoses in British Columbia (BC). In part, perception of decreased risk (e.g., fewer who smoke carry naloxone kits) and limited smoking-specific harm reduction services contribute to overdose deaths. Overdose prevention services (OPS) offer supervised settings for drug use. Continuous pulse oximetry, common in acute care, allows real-time, remote oxygen monitoring. We evaluated the effectiveness of a novel continuous pulse oximetry protocol aimed at allowing physical distancing (as required by COVID-19, secluded spaces, and to avoid staff exposure to vaporized opioids), its feasibility, and acceptability at OPS for people who smoke opioids. Methods This was a mixed methods survey study. We developed a continuous pulse oximetry protocol in collaboration with clinical experts and people with lived/living experience of substance use. We implemented our protocol from March to August 2021 at four OPS in BC permitting smoking. We included adults ([greater than or equal to] 18 years) presenting to OPS to smoke opioids. Peer researchers collected demographic, health, and substance use information, and conducted structured observations. OPS clients participating in our study, OPS staff, and peer researchers completed post-monitoring surveys. We analyzed responses using a thematic inductive approach and validated themes with peer researchers. Results We included 599 smoking events. OPS clients participating in our study had a mean age of 38.5 years; 73% were male. Most (98%) reported using 'down', heroin, or fentanyl; 48% concurrently used other substances (32% of whom reported stimulants); 76% reported smoking alone in the last 3 days; and 36% reported an overdose while smoking. Respondents reported that the protocol facilitated physical distancing, was easy to use, high satisfaction, improved confidence, improved sense of safety, and that they would use it again. Conclusions Continuous pulse oximetry allowed safe physical distancing, was feasible, and acceptable in monitoring people who smoke opioids at OPS. Keywords: Addiction medicine, Harm reduction, Opioid overdose
Background Smoking is the most common mode of unregulated opioid consumption overall and implicated in fatal overdoses in British Columbia (BC). In part, perception of decreased risk (e.g., fewer who smoke carry naloxone kits) and limited smoking-specific harm reduction services contribute to overdose deaths. Overdose prevention services (OPS) offer supervised settings for drug use. Continuous pulse oximetry, common in acute care, allows real-time, remote oxygen monitoring. We evaluated the effectiveness of a novel continuous pulse oximetry protocol aimed at allowing physical distancing (as required by COVID-19, secluded spaces, and to avoid staff exposure to vaporized opioids), its feasibility, and acceptability at OPS for people who smoke opioids. Methods This was a mixed methods survey study. We developed a continuous pulse oximetry protocol in collaboration with clinical experts and people with lived/living experience of substance use. We implemented our protocol from March to August 2021 at four OPS in BC permitting smoking. We included adults ([greater than or equal to] 18 years) presenting to OPS to smoke opioids. Peer researchers collected demographic, health, and substance use information, and conducted structured observations. OPS clients participating in our study, OPS staff, and peer researchers completed post-monitoring surveys. We analyzed responses using a thematic inductive approach and validated themes with peer researchers. Results We included 599 smoking events. OPS clients participating in our study had a mean age of 38.5 years; 73% were male. Most (98%) reported using 'down', heroin, or fentanyl; 48% concurrently used other substances (32% of whom reported stimulants); 76% reported smoking alone in the last 3 days; and 36% reported an overdose while smoking. Respondents reported that the protocol facilitated physical distancing, was easy to use, high satisfaction, improved confidence, improved sense of safety, and that they would use it again. Conclusions Continuous pulse oximetry allowed safe physical distancing, was feasible, and acceptable in monitoring people who smoke opioids at OPS. Keywords: Addiction medicine, Harm reduction, Opioid overdose