15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Post-overdose interventions triggered by calling 911: Centering the perspectives of people who use drugs (PWUDs)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Opioid overdose deaths have increased exponentially in the United States. Bystander response to opioid overdose ideally involves administering naloxone, providing rescue breathing, and calling 911 to summon emergency medical assistance. Recently in the US, public health and public safety agencies have begun seeking to use 911 calls as a method to identify and deliver post-overdose interventions to opioid overdose patients. Little is known about the opinions of PWUDs about the barriers, benefits, or potential harms of post-overdose interventions linked to the 911 system. We sought to understand the perspectives of PWUDs about a method for using 911 data to identify opioid overdose cases and trigger a post-overdose intervention.

          Methods and findings

          We conducted three focus groups with 11 PWUDs in 2018. Results are organized into 4 categories: willingness to call 911 (benefits and risks of calling), thoughts about a technique to identify opioid overdoses in 911 data (benefits and concerns), thoughts about the proposed post-overdose intervention (benefits and concerns), and recommendations for developing an ideal post-overdose intervention. For most participants, calling 911 was synonymous with “calling the police” and law enforcement-related fears were pervasive, limiting willingness to engage with the 911 system. The technique to identify opioid overdoses and the proposed post-overdose intervention were identified as potentially lifesaving, but the benefits were balanced by concerns related to law enforcement involvement, intervention timing, and risks to privacy/reputation. Nearly universally, participants wished for a way to summon emergency medical assistance without triggering a law enforcement response.

          Conclusions

          The fact that the 911 system in the US inextricably links emergency medical assistance with law enforcement response inherently problematizes calling 911 for PWUDs, and has implications for surveillance and intervention. It is imperative to center the perspectives of PWUDs when designing and implementing interventions that rely on the 911 system for activation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Changing dynamics of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States from 1979 through 2016

          Better understanding of the dynamics of the current U.S. overdose epidemic may aid in the development of more effective prevention and control strategies. We analyzed records of 599,255 deaths from 1979 through 2016 from the National Vital Statistics System in which accidental drug poisoning was identified as the main cause of death. By examining all available data on accidental poisoning deaths back to 1979 and showing that the overall 38-year curve is exponential, we provide evidence that the current wave of opioid overdose deaths (due to prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl) may just be the latest manifestation of a more fundamental longer-term process. The 38+ year smooth exponential curve of total U.S. annual accidental drug poisoning deaths is a composite of multiple distinctive subepidemics of different drugs (primarily prescription opioids, heroin, methadone, synthetic opioids, cocaine, and methamphetamine), each with its own specific demographic and geographic characteristics.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Opioid Overdose Prevention Programs Providing Naloxone to Laypersons — United States, 2014

            Drug overdose deaths in the United States have more than doubled since 1999 (1). During 2013, 43,982 drug overdose deaths (unintentional, intentional [suicide or homicide], or undetermined intent) were reported (1). Among these, 16,235 (37%) were associated with prescription opioid analgesics (e.g., oxycodone and hydrocodone) and 8,257 (19%) with heroin (2). For many years, community-based programs have offered opioid overdose prevention services to laypersons who might witness an overdose, including persons who use drugs, their families and friends, and service providers. Since 1996, an increasing number of programs provide laypersons with training and kits containing the opioid antagonist naloxone hydrochloride (naloxone) to reverse the potentially fatal respiratory depression caused by heroin and other opioids (3). In July 2014, the Harm Reduction Coalition (HRC), a national advocacy and capacity-building organization, surveyed 140 managers of organizations in the United States known to provide naloxone kits to laypersons. Managers at 136 organizations completed the survey, reporting on the amount of naloxone distributed, overdose reversals by bystanders, and other program data for 644 sites that were providing nalox-one kits to laypersons as of June 2014. From 1996 through June 2014, surveyed organizations provided naloxone kits to 152,283 laypersons and received reports of 26,463 overdose reversals. Providing opioid overdose training and naloxone kits to laypersons who might witness an opioid overdose can help reduce opioid overdose mortality. Since 2008, HRC has maintained a database of organizations providing naloxone kits to laypersons. The Opioid Safety and Naloxone Network is a national network of naloxone experts, program administrators, and advocates. Before the survey, HRC staff polled network participants for information on any new organizations providing naloxone kits to laypersons that should be included in the survey. In July 2014, HRC e-mailed a link to an online survey to managers of 140 organizations known to provide naloxone kits to laypersons. These organizations included public health departments, pharmacies, health care facilities, substance use treatment facilities, and community-based organizations providing services to persons who use drugs, including current or former opioid (heroin or pharmaceutical) users, and other potential witnesses to overdoses. Law enforcement organizations, emergency medical services, and other professional first responders using naloxone were not included in this survey. The survey included questions about the year the organization began operating; the numbers of sites or local programs providing naloxone kits; the number of persons trained in overdose prevention and provided naloxone kits; and the number of reports of overdose reversals (administration of naloxone by a trained layperson in the event of an overdose) (4), as well as whether the reports were based on program data or were estimates. The survey also asked about the naloxone formulations currently provided in kits, models for training and providing naloxone kits, funding sources, and any difficulties obtaining naloxone. To obtain data for a recent full calendar year, organizations providing naloxone kits during calendar year 2013 were asked to provide specific data for that year, including numbers of persons provided naloxone kits, reversals reported, and naloxone vials provided; characteristics of persons who received naloxone kits (e.g., persons who use drugs, friends and family members, service providers); characteristics of persons reporting overdose reversals; and the drugs involved in reported overdose reversals. HRC staff used follow-up e-mails and telephone calls to encourage participation and clarify responses. Managers from 136 (97.1%) organizations completed the survey, including those from 84 community-based organizations, 18 health care facilities, 10 Veterans Administration health care systems, 18 state or local health departments, and six pharmacies. Half of the responding organizations began operating during January 2013–June 2014 (Figure 1). Respondents provided reports for 644 local opioid overdose prevention sites that provide naloxone kits, located in 30 states and the District of Columbia (DC) (Figure 2). Thirty-eight respondents provided consolidated data for multiple local sites providing naloxone kits. Some organizations estimated responses; for example, one health department estimated the number of laypersons receiving naloxone kits on the basis of the number of kits distributed to local sites. Three state health departments (Massachusetts, New Mexico, and New York) oversee operations of statewide naloxone programs, with 334 local sites (51.9% of the 644 local sites). From 1996, when the first organization began providing naloxone, through June 2014, the 136 responding organizations reported providing training and naloxone kits to 152,283 laypersons (range = 1–36,450; median = 100; mean = 1,120).* The 109 organizations that collect reports of reversals documented 26,463 overdose reversals (range = 0–5,430; median = 9; mean = 243).† During 2013, 93 organizations reported distributing or prescribing naloxone to 37,920 laypersons (range = 0–9,000; median = 75; mean = 407.7).§ The 68 (50%) organizations that collect reports of reversals documented 8,032 overdose reversals (range = 0–2,079; median = 10; mean = 118.1).¶ Ninety-three organizations collected information on the characteristics of laypersons who were provided naloxone kits. Laypersons who received naloxone kits were characterized as persons who use drugs (81.6%); friends and family members (11.7%); service providers (3.3%); or unknown (3.4%).** Sixty-eight organizations provided information about lay-persons who reported administering naloxone, characterizing them as persons who use drugs (82.8%); friends and family members (9.6%); service providers (0.2%); or unknown (7.4%).†† Forty-two organizations collected information from laypersons about the drugs that appeared to be involved in the reversed overdoses; heroin was involved in 81.6% and prescription opioids in 14.1%.§§ Various program models were used by organizations to provide naloxone to laypersons, including distribution of naloxone kits by trained nonmedical staff or volunteers under a standing order (60 [44.1%]), by medical staff (49 [36.0%]), prescriptions written by a medical provider and filled at a pharmacy (39 [28.7%]), pharmacists dispensing directly via collaborative practice agreements and other mechanisms (12 [8.8%]), and other protocols (19 [14.0%]). Thirty-three organizations used more than one model. During 2013, 90 (66.2%) of the 136 organizations reported distributing 140,053 naloxone vials, including refills (range = 1–53,200; median = 179.5; mean = 1,556.1).¶¶ Three respondents whose organizations were operational in 2013 did not report on the number of vials because they furnished prescriptions to be filled at a pharmacy. The remaining 43 organizations indicated that they were not yet providing naloxone kits during 2013. Sixty-nine respondents (50.7%) reported their organization provided only injectable naloxone, 51 (37.5%) provided only intranasal naloxone, and 16 (11.8%) provided both injectable and intranasal naloxone.*** A total of 111,602 vials (79.7%) of injectable naloxone (21.4% 10 mL and 58.1% 1 mL) and 28,446 (20.3%) vials of intranasal naloxone were provided to laypersons. Organizations were characterized as small, medium, large, or very large, on the basis of the number of naloxone vials distributed during 2013. The 11 large and very large organizations provided naloxone to 28,604 laypersons, representing 75.4% of all 2013 recipients (Table). Forty (29.4%) organizations reported difficulties maintaining an adequate supply of naloxone, and 73 (53.7%) reported inadequate resources to sustain or expand their organization’s efforts to disseminate naloxone kits. Discussion Organizations that provide naloxone kits to laypersons have expanded substantially since a similar survey in 2010 (5), reflecting a 183% (from 48 to 136) increase in the number of responding organizations; a 243% (from 188 to 644) increase in the number of local sites providing naloxone; a 187% (from 53,032 to 152,283) increase in the number of laypersons provided naloxone kits; a 160% (from 10,171 to 26,463) increase in the number of reversals reported; and a 94% (from 16 to 30) increase in states (including DC) with at least one organization providing naloxone. Half of the responding organizations began operating during January 2013–June 2014. Although early adopters of naloxone kit provision were mainly syringe exchanges, other programs, including substance use treatment facilities, Veterans Administration health care systems, primary care clinics, and pharmacies have started providing naloxone to laypersons. Providing naloxone kits to laypersons reduces overdose deaths (4), is safe (3), and is cost-effective (6). U.S. and international health organizations recommend providing naloxone kits to laypersons who might witness an opioid overdose (3,7); to patients in substance use treatment programs (3,7,8); to persons leaving prison and jail (3,7,8); and as a component of responsible opioid prescribing (8). Although the number of organizations providing naloxone kits to laypersons is increasing, in 2013, 20 states had no such organization, and nine had less than one layperson per 100,000 population who had received a naloxone kit. Among these 29 states with minimal or no access to naloxone kits for laypersons, 11 had age-adjusted 2013 drug overdose death rates higher than the national median (2). Some organizations reported information on the laypersons receiving naloxone kits (N = 99 organizations), using naloxone in overdose reversals (N = 68), and the drugs that appeared to have caused the overdose (N = 42). Persons who use drugs accounted for 81.6% of laypersons who received naloxone kits; they also performed the majority (82.8%) of reported overdose reversals. A majority (81.6%) of the overdoses that were reversed involved heroin, indicating that organizations are reaching laypersons who witness heroin overdoses. A study of a community-based naloxone program in San Francisco also found that persons who use drugs play a major role in reversing heroin overdoses (9). Additional interventions are needed to reach persons who may witness prescription opioid analgesic overdoses, which account for nearly twice as many deaths as heroin overdoses. Forty (29.4%) respondents reported that their organization has experienced problems obtaining naloxone. Prices of intranasal naloxone more than doubled in the second half of 2014 (10) and Opioid Safety and Naloxone Network members report that cost increases are reducing the quantity of naloxone purchased and provided to laypersons (Matt Curtis, VOCAL NY, personal communication, 2015). The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, despite extensive knowledge of naloxone distribution programs by the Harm Reduction Coalition and Opioid Safety and Naloxone Network, organizations providing naloxone kits are increasing rapidly and some might not yet be known to HRC and therefore, might not be included in the survey, which may underestimate the impact of these programs. Second, survey responses are based on unconfirmed reports from organizations providing naloxone kits. Third, some reports provided by organizations are based on estimates. These three limitations could result in either under or over-reporting of persons provided naloxone kits. Finally, the numbers of overdose reversals likely were under-reported, because some sites, such as pharmacies, do not collect reversal reports. Organizations providing naloxone kits to laypersons receive many reports of overdose reversals and can reach large numbers of potential overdose bystanders. Comprehensive prevention measures that include teaching laypersons how to respond to overdoses and administer naloxone might help prevent opioid drug overdose deaths. This report suggests that many programs reach persons who witness heroin-related overdoses; additional methods are needed to provide naloxone kits to persons who might witness prescription opioid analgesic overdoses. Summary What is already known on this topic? Drug overdose deaths in the United States have more than doubled since 1999, reaching a total of 43,982 in 2013. Heroin and prescription opioids are major causes of drug overdose deaths. Naloxone is the standard medication used for reversal of the potentially fatal respiratory depression caused by opioid overdose. What is added by this report? From 1996 through June 2014, a total of 644 local sites in 30 states and the District of Columbia reported providing naloxone kits to 152,283 laypersons and receiving reports of 26,463 drug overdose reversals using naloxone from 1996 through June 2014. Most laypersons who reported using the kits to reverse an overdose were persons who use drugs, and many of the reported reversals involved heroin overdoses. Medical clinics and pharmacies have started providing naloxone kits to laypersons, and the reported number of organizations providing kits almost doubled from January 2013 through June 2014. What are the implications for public health practice? Organizations training and providing naloxone kits to laypersons can reach large numbers of potential overdose witnesses and result in many reported overdose reversals. Comprehensive prevention measures that include teaching laypersons how to respond to overdoses and administer naloxone prevent opioid-related drug overdose deaths. Additional methods are needed to provide naloxone kits to persons who might witness prescription opioid analgesic overdoses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Naloxone distribution and cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for injection drug users to prevent heroin overdose death: a pilot intervention study.

              K Seal (2005)
              Fatal heroin overdose has become a leading cause of death among injection drug users (IDUs). Several recent feasibility studies have concluded that naloxone distribution programs for heroin injectors should be implemented to decrease heroin over-dose deaths, but there have been no prospective trials of such programs in North America. This pilot study was undertaken to investigate the safety and feasibility of training injection drug using partners to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and administer naloxone in the event of heroin overdose. During May and June 2001, 24 IDUs (12 pairs of injection partners) were recruited from street settings in San Francisco. Participants took part in 8-hour training in heroin overdose prevention, CPR, and the use of naloxone. Following the intervention, participants were prospectively followed for 6 months to determine the number and outcomes of witnessed heroin overdoses, outcomes of participant interventions, and changes in participants' knowledge of overdose and drug use behavior. Study participants witnessed 20 heroin overdose events during 6 months follow-up. They performed CPR in 16 (80%) events, administered naloxone in 15 (75%) and did one or the other in 19 (95%). All overdose victims survived. Knowledge about heroin overdose management increased, whereas heroin use decreased. IDUs can be trained to respond to heroin overdose emergencies by performing CPR and administering naloxone. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this peer intervention to prevent fatal heroin overdose.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: Methodology
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                17 October 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 10
                : e0223823
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, United States of America
                [2 ] Nevada Center for Applied Research, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, United States of America
                [3 ] School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America
                [4 ] FirstWatch, Inc., Carlsbad, California, United States of America
                [5 ] Division of Infectious Disease and Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California, United States of America
                Douglas Mental Health University Institute, CANADA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: FirstWatch is a company that creates technological solutions to manage and use real-time 9-1-1 data to inform emergency medical response. Prior to working at FirstWatch, SRV was a Project Coordinator on an NIH/NIDA-funded study related to this report. SRV conducted data collection and analysis related the larger study while she was employed as Project Coordinator for the NIH/NIDA-funded study. Her contributions towards the preparation of the current manuscript occurred while she was employed by FirstWatch, Inc. FirstWatch was compensated as a vendor to query 9-1-1 data for the larger NIH-funded studies related to this report, but has not contributed in any way to the development of the current manuscript other than with salary support paid to Dr. Verdugo as discussed in the ‘Funding’ section. KW and PJD have testified as unpaid invited experts (PJD) and public comment (KW) on the topic of opioid overdose and naloxone availability for the US Food and Drug Administration and US National Institutes of Health and other state and local governmental bodies. KW holds a separate grant from Arnold Ventures to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and outcomes of an emergency department-based post-overdose intervention. These declarations do not alter our adherence to the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8614-2004
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6051-065X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7169-8061
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4000-5370
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4231-211X
                Article
                PONE-D-19-17411
                10.1371/journal.pone.0223823
                6797193
                31622401
                8ea364fe-295e-4e0d-81c4-72090a0f3bd3
                © 2019 Wagner et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 19 June 2019
                : 30 September 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Pages: 14
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000026, National Institute on Drug Abuse;
                Award ID: R01DA040648
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000057, National Institute of General Medical Sciences;
                Award ID: P20GM103440
                Award Recipient :
                Research reported in this publication was supported by the US National Institutes of Health under awards P20GM103440 (KW, BL) and R01DA040648 (PJD, KW). The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors (KW, BL, PJD) but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The commercial company FirstWatch, Inc. provided support in the form of salary for author SRV beginning in September 2018 and had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or FirstWatch, Inc.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drugs
                Analgesics
                Opioids
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pain Management
                Analgesics
                Opioids
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drugs
                Opioids
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Critical Care and Emergency Medicine
                Social Sciences
                Law and Legal Sciences
                Criminal Justice System
                Law Enforcement
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Criminology
                Police
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Police
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Safety
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                People and places
                Geographical locations
                North America
                United States
                Nevada
                Custom metadata
                Because of the sensitive nature of the information contained in the transcripts (e.g., details about illegal behavior) and potential for severe ethical, legal, and social consequences resulting from broken confidentiality, full transcripts cannot not be made publicly available, per restrictions imposed by the Reno Research Integrity Office, and IRB. Redacted excerpts of the qualitative transcripts used in the current analysis will be made available to qualified researchers subject to review and approval by the appropriate Institutional Review Board(s). Requests can be made to the University of Nevada, Reno Research Integrity Office by calling +1-775-327-2368 or via email to Reno RIO director, Nancy Mood: nmoody@ 123456unr.edu .

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article