Adapting harm reduction services during COVID-19: lessons from the supervised injecting facilities in Australia

The COVID-19 crisis has had profound impacts on health service provision, particularly those providing client facing services. Supervised injecting facilities and drug consumption rooms across the world have been particularly challenged during the pandemic, as have their client group—people who consume drugs. Several services across Europe and North America closed due to difficulties complying with physical distancing requirements. In contrast, the two supervised injecting facilities in Australia (the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre—MSIC—in Sydney and the North Richmond Community Health Medically Supervised Injecting Room—MSIR—in Melbourne) remained open (as at the time of writing—December 2020). Both services have implemented a comprehensive range of strategies to continue providing safer injecting spaces as well as communicating crucial health information and facilitating access to ancillary services (such as accommodation) and drug treatment for their clients. This paper documents these strategies and the challenges both services are facing during the pandemic. Remaining open poses potential risks relating to COVID-19 transmission for both staff and clients. However, given the harms associated with closing these services, which include the potential loss of life from injecting in unsafe/unsupervised environments, the public and individual health benefits of remaining open are greater. Both services are deemed ‘essential health services’, and their continued operation has important benefits for people who inject drugs in Sydney and Melbourne.

Integrating Smoking Cessation Care into a Medically Supervised Injecting Facility Using an Organizational Change Intervention: A Qualitative Study of Staff and Client Views

Background: Clients accessing supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) smoke at high rates. An SIF piloted an organizational change intervention to integrate smoking cessation care as routine treatment. This study aims to explore staff acceptability, perceived facilitators, and perceived barriers to implementing six core components of an organizational change intervention to integrate smoking cessation care in an SIF. Staff and client views on the acceptability, facilitators, and barriers to the provision of smoking cessation care were also examined. Methods: This paper presents findings from the qualitative component conducted post-intervention implementation. Face-to-face semi-structured staff interviews (n = 14) and two client focus groups (n = 5 and n = 4) were conducted between September and October 2016. Recruitment continued until data saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was employed to synthesise and combine respondent views and identify key themes. Results: Staff viewed the organizational change intervention as acceptable. Commitment from leadership, a designated champion, access to resources, and the congruence between the change and the facility’s ethos were important facilitators of organizational change. Less engaged staff was the sole barrier to the intervention. Smoking cessation care was deemed suitable. Key facilitators of smoking cessation care included: Written protocols, ongoing training, and visually engaging information. Key barriers of smoking cessation care included: Lack of access to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) outside of business hours, practical limitations of the database, and concerns about sustainability of NRT. Conclusion: This study develops our understanding of factors influencing the implementation of an organisational change intervention to promote sustainable provision of smoking cessation care in the SIF setting.

Homelessness among clients of Sydney’s supervised injecting facility

Purpose The Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) opened in Sydney, Australia, in May 2001. Homelessness among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Australia has been increasing, and establishing how supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) might best support clients into housing is an important goal. The purpose of this paper is to update knowledge regarding the accommodation status of MSIC clients, thereby supporting a better understanding of the complex needs of these clients. Design/methodology/approach Client accommodation status at MSIC registration (first visit) and in a brief survey (conducted in May 2016) were compared; unstable accommodation was defined as rough sleeping, couch surfing, hostel, boarding house or crisis accommodation. The bivariate logistic regression analysis was used to explore the association between socio-demographics and accommodation status at both time points; a paired t-test was used to compare the visit records for those who reported stable and unstable accommodation in May 2016. Findings Of 232 clients who were present at MSIC during the week the Brief Survey was conducted, 107 participated. Most were male (79 per cent) with a mean age of 41.4 years. A total of 64 (60 per cent) identified as living in unstable accommodation; having increased from 40 per cent at the time of registration (first visit). There were significant positive associations between unstable accommodation status and unemployment, imprisonment and history of overdose, all measured at registration. In May 2016, unstable accommodation status was significantly associated with age of first injection and with unemployment status (as measured at registration); those living in unstable accommodation in May 2016 had a lower number of visits, a lower number of referrals to health and social services and a lower number of overdoses at MSIC than those living in a stable accommodation. Originality/value The rates of unstable accommodation among MSIC clients have been increasing. These findings highlight the importance of SIFs and drug consumption rooms as venue to address the essential needs of PWID, such as housing. The window of opportunity to support PWID who experience housing instability seems to be narrower than for those who live in stable accommodation.