MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4285091964 · doi:10.29173/cjen183

Impact of Calgary’s supervised consumption site on opioid-related emergency health care usage

2022· article· en· W4285091964 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Allen Vorobeichik, Hannah Yaphe, Amber Feldmann, Noolifar Taghizadeh, Dongmei Wang, Eddy Lang

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Journal of Emergency Nursing · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Établissements canadiensAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHarm reductionMedicinePublic healthOpioid overdose(+)-NaloxoneOutreachGovernment (linguistics)Health careEnvironmental healthMedical emergencyNursingOpioidEconomic growth

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Opioid overdoses have been an increasing public health problem in North America for several years. Supervised consumption sites (SCSs) – hygienic and medically supervised spaces to use illicit substances – are one harm reduction strategy intended to decrease morbidity and mortality, with literature suggesting they reduce emergency department (ED) visits, overdoses, and deaths. Calgary’s sole SCS opened in 2017 and received over 6000 monthly visits prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but recent provincial policy has jeopardized its longevity. To our knowledge, there has not been an evaluation of its effectiveness, so we sought to investigate its impact on opioid-related ED visits. Methods: Calgary’s SCS was not implemented in our institution specifically. It was implemented for the Calgary region by Safeworks, an outreach program under the Alberta Health Services (AHS) umbrella, after obtaining a Health Canada exemption and funding from the provincial government. Implementation also required close collaboration with public services (e.g., Calgary Police Services) and the municipal government. The Safeworks SCS opened on October 30, 2017 and remains the only supervised consumption facility in the Calgary region. It is currently located in the Sheldon Chumir Health Centre in downtown Calgary. In addition to supervised consumption, the SCS also offers all clients harm reduction supplies (e.g., naloxone kits), health services (e.g., testing and counselling for sexually transmitted infections, referral to Calgary Opioid Dependency Program), education (e.g., vein care), and access to social services (e.g., housing supports). Evaluation Methods: This was a retrospective observational study examining the impact of the SCS on two markers of opioid related morbidity (EMS responses and ED visits). Calgary EMS responses, wherein the opioid overdose protocol was activated or naloxone was administered, were queried from the Alberta Health Services (AHS) information management database. ED visits due to opioid toxicity were queried from AHS using ICD-10 codes T40.0-T40.4 and T40.6. Data was collected from January 2014 to February 2020. The impact of Calgary’s SCS was analyzed with an interrupted time series using ordinary least squares regression with Newey-West standard errors. Results: Our data query yielded 9208 EMS responses and 8442 ED visits related to opioid use over the 74-month period. There were no months with missing data. Prior to the opening of Calgary’s SCS, monthly EMS responses and ED visits increased significantly by 3.69 [3.08, 4.30] and 7.09 [5.92, 8.26] visits/month, respectively (p<0.001). After the SCS’ opening, the trends in EMS responses and ED visits declined significantly, relative to the pre-intervention trends, by 7.14 [5.72, 8.56] (p<0.001) and 15.34 [12.21, 18.48] (p<0.001) visits/month, respectively. After the intervention, EMS responses declined at a rate of 3.45 visits per month (p <0.001) and ED visits declined at a rate of 8.25 visits per month (p< 0.001). Our interrupted time series suggest that Calgary’s SCS led to a significant change (and in fact, a reversal) in the trends of opioid-related EMS responses and ED visits. This evidence suggests that ongoing access to Calgary’s SCS has a favourable impact. Advice and Lessons Learned: 1) Similar studies in the future should consider partnering with their local SCSs (e.g., Safeworks) to conduct a multi-faceted program evaluation, including organization-driven outcomes. This could also facilitate respectful and ethical patient engagement. 2) Evaluating mortality data or other more direct markers of morbidity in addition to ED visits may be high yield in future research as it provides greater insight into the breadth of medical outcomes and further informs advocacy efforts. 3) Our study did not consider the impacts of other opioid-related interventions in Calgary/Alberta. This was a deliberate choice, however it is ultimately difficult to estimate the impact of an isolated intervention. One option would be to evaluate all relevant interventions as a group of interventions, given that substance misuse and associated harms is a multifaceted problem that requires a multidisciplinary approach

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,472
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,950

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0020,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,028
Tête enseignante GPT0,336
Écart entre enseignants0,307 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Journal of Emergency NursingMême sujetOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentTravaux en français237 207