Treating Persons Who Inject Drugs: The Need for Holistic and Respectful Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Psychiatric Association defines addiction as …a complex condition, a brain disease that is manifested by compulsive substance use despite harmful consequence. People with addiction (severe substance use disorder) have an intense focus on using a certain substance(s)… to the point that it takes over their life.1 With addiction, there are accompanying physical changes in the frontal cortex of the brain that impair judgment, decision-making, learning, memory, and behavior.1 The biochemical rewiring of the brain may make it difficult to overcome addictions even if a patient is motivated to change! One of the most difficult aspects of care is treating persons who inject drugs (PWIDs). This month’s CE/CME article by Dr Barbara Pieper focuses on certain aspects of care for PWIDs, including skin and soft tissue infections, vascular damage/disease, and wounds. Other important findings inlcude the presence of cellulitis and abscesses, especially in the groin and on the legs and feet. Skin and wound healers must be aware of these complications, which can lead to a high morbidity and mortality in this growing patient population. These complications are not always given as much attention in the literature compared with the susceptibility to viral diseases such as HIV or hepatitis C. Dr Pieper and other practitioners like her are very specific in their plea for PWIDs to receive respectful, nonjudgmental care. We must provide a safe environment for PWIDs to seek treatment because they may experience negative attitudes from other healthcare professionals based on their addiction. For regular follow-up of nonacute signs and symptoms, PWIDs should avoid the fragmented treatment from frequent visits to the emergency department, but these patients need to be comfortable with their healthcare providers to access ongoing care. As part of our review of this topic, we reread a 2014 report published by UNAIDS.2 There were several statements in the document that highlight the patient’s voice: “Health-care workers do not trust me, as if I just want drugs,” “I would like to give up drugs, but I cannot get help,” “There are no friendly health-care services near where I live,” “I am treated as a criminal and this makes it hard to take care of my health,” and “Without clean needles and syringes, I have to share.” Statements such as these may help providers understand why PWIDs recognize the signs and symptoms of infection but are reluctant to access healthcare and may delay seeking needed treatment. Dr Pieper recognizes how this stigma can also result in some PWIDs creating their own solutions to address their care needs. Their ad hoc treatment plans can include draining their own abscesses as well as increasing drug use to manage pain, neither of which is likely to lead to desirable health outcomes. An improved and empathetic approach to the management of addictive disorders and patients with these often devastating skin and vascular complications is needed. Closing the gap for these patients could involve healthcare providers advocating to change punitive laws that criminalize drug use, expanding evidence-informed services such as needle exchanges and expert interprofessional addiction services, and reducing stigma and personal discrimination against persons with addiction disorders.2FigureElizabeth A. Ayello, PhD, RN, CWON, ETN, MAPWCA, FAANFigureR. Gary Sibbald, MD, DSc (Hons), MEd, BSc, FRCPC (Med Derm), FAAD, MAPWCA, JM
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".