Literature Collection

IMPORTANCE: Harm reduction is associated with improved health outcomes among people who use substances. As overdose deaths persist, hospitals are recognizing the need for harm reduction services; however, little is known about the outcomes of hospital-based harm reduction for patients and staff. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient and staff perspectives on the impact and challenges of a hospital-based harm reduction program offering safer use education and supplies at discharge. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study consisted of 40-minute semistructured interviews with hospitalized patients receiving harm reduction services and hospital staff at an urban, safety-net hospital in California from October 2022 to March 2023. Purposive sampling allowed inclusion of diverse patient racial and ethnic identities, substance use disorders (SUDs), and staff roles. EXPOSURE: Receipt of harm reduction education and/or supplies (eg, syringes, pipes, naloxone, and test strips) from an addiction consult team, or providing care for patients receiving these services. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key themes. RESULTS: A total of 40 participants completed interviews, including 20 patients (mean [SD] age, 43 [13] years; 1 American Indian or Alaska Native [5%], 1 Asian and Pacific Islander [5%], 6 Black [30%]; 6 Latine [30%]; and 6 White [30%]) and 20 staff (mean [SD] age 37 [8] years). Patients were diagnosed with a variety of SUDs (7 patients with opioid and stimulant use disorder [35%]; 7 patients with stimulant use disorder [35%]; 3 patients with opioid use disorder [15%]; and 3 patients with alcohol use disorder [15%]). A total of 3 themes were identified; respondents reported that harm reduction programs (1) expanded access to harm reduction education and supplies, particularly for ethnically and racially minoritized populations; (2) built trust by improving the patient care experience and increasing engagement; and (3) catalyzed culture change by helping destigmatize care for individuals who planned to continue using substances and increasing staff fulfillment. Black and Latine patients, those who primarily used stimulants, and those with limited English proficiency (LEP) reported learning new harm reduction strategies. Program challenges included hesitancy regarding regulations, limited SUD education among staff, remaining stigma, and the need for careful assessment of patient goals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this qualitative study, patients and staff believed that integrating harm reduction services into hospital care increased access for populations unfamiliar with harm reduction, improved trust, and reduced stigma. These findings suggest that efforts to increase access to harm reduction services for Black, Latine, and LEP populations, including those who use stimulants, are especially needed.

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated adaptations to outpatient care delivery and changes in treatment demand and engagement among patients receiving medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) in the months after the declaration of the COVID-19 public health emergency in 2020. METHODS: Data were collected through an online survey (June-November 2020) of outpatient MOUD prescribers. The survey obtained information on outpatient practices' adaptations to MOUD treatment and urine drug screening (UDS) and elicited provider views on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient demand for, and engagement in, treatment. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine associations among practice characteristics, patient engagement, and service adaptations. RESULTS: Of 516 respondents, 74% reported adaptations to MOUD delivery during the pandemic. Most respondents implemented virtual visits for initial (67%) and follow-up (77%) contacts. Prescribers of buprenorphine were more likely than those who did not prescribe the medication to report MOUD adaptations. Among respondents reporting any MOUD adaptation, 77% made adaptations to their UDS practices. Among 513 respondents who answered COVID-19-related questions, 89% reported that the pandemic had affected the treatment and engagement of their patients. Of these respondents, 30% reported increased difficulty with patient engagement, and 45% reported that their patients preferred virtual visits during this period, whereas 18% endorsed patient preference for in-person visits. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth and federal regulatory easements in response to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled providers to continue treating patients for opioid use disorder in 2020. The results suggest that care adaptations and changes in patient demand and engagement were common in the practices surveyed.