Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 104, Issue 3, pp e200–e204 | Cite as

Development and Implementation of an Opioid Overdose Prevention and Response Program in Toronto, Ontario

  • Pamela N. Leece
  • Shaun HopkinsEmail author
  • Chantel Marshall
  • Aaron Orkin
  • Margaret A. Gassanov
  • Rita M. Shahin
Public Health Intervention

Abstract

Objectives

We describe the development of the first community-based opioid overdose prevention and response program with naloxone distribution offered by a public health unit in Canada (Prevent Overdose in Toronto, POINT).

Participants

The target population is people who use opioids by any route, throughout the City of Toronto.

Setting

The POINT program is operated by the needle exchange program at Toronto Public Health (The Works) and offered at over 40 partner agency sites throughout Toronto.

Intervention

POINT is a comprehensive program of overdose prevention and response training, including naloxone dispensing. Clients are instructed by public health staff on overdose risk factors, recognizing signs and symptoms of overdose, calling 911, naloxone administration, stimulation and chest compressions, and post-overdose care. Training is offered to clients one-on-one or in small groups. Clients receive a naloxone kit including two 1 mL ampoules of naloxone hydrochloride (0.4 mg/mL) and are advised to return to The Works for a refill and debriefing if the naloxone kit is used.

Outcomes

In the first 8 months of the program, 209 clients were trained. Clients have reported 17 administrations of naloxone, and all overdose victims have reportedly survived. Client demand for POINT training has been high, and Toronto Public Health has expanded its capacity to provide training. Overall, reception to the program has been overwhelmingly positive.

Conclusion

We are encouraged by the initial development and implementation experience with the naloxone program and its potential to save lives in Toronto. We have planned short-, intermediate-, and long-term process and outcome evaluations.

Key Words

Naloxone narcotic antagonists opioid-related disorders overdose prevention & control resuscitation 

Résumé

Objectifs

Nous décrivons l’élaboration du premier programme communautaire de prévention et de lutte contre les surdoses d’opioïdes par la distribution de naloxone offert dans un bureau de santé publique au Canada (Prevent Overdose in Toronto, POINT).

Participants

La population cible est constituée des personnes consommant des opioïdes, par n’importe quelle voie, dans la ville de Toronto.

Lieu

Prevent Overdose in Toronto est exécuté par le programme d’échange de seringues du Service de santé publique de Toronto (The Works) et offert sur plus de 40 sites d’organismes partenaires à Toronto.

Intervention

POINT est un programme complet de formation à la prévention et à la lutte contre les surdoses incluant la distribution de naloxone. Le personnel de santé publique explique aux clients les facteurs de risque de surdose, les signes et les symptômes de surdose, quand composer le 911, le mode d’administration de la naloxone, la stimulation cardiaque et les compressions thoraciques, ainsi que les soins après une surdose. La formation est offerte aux clients individuellement ou en petits groupes. Les clients reçoivent une trousse de naloxone avec deux ampoules de chlorhydrate de naloxone de 1 mL (0,4 mg/mL); s’ils ont utilisé la naloxone, on leur demande de retourner à The Works pour renouveler leur trousse et faire un bilan.

Résultats

Au cours des huit premiers mois du programme, 209 clients ont été formés. Les clients ont fait état de 17 administrations de naloxone; toutes les victimes de surdoses auraient survécu. La demande des clients pour la formation POINT étant élevée, le Service de santé publique de Toronto a renforcé ses capacités d’offrir cette formation. Globalement, l’accueil réservé au programme est extrêmement positif.

Conclusion

Nous sommes encouragés par l’expérience d’élaboration et de mise en oeuvre initiale du programme de naloxone et par les vies qu’il pourrait sauver à Toronto. Nous planifions des évaluations à court, moyen et long terme du processus et des résultats.

Mots Clés

naloxone antagonistes narcotiques troubles liés aux opiacés overdose prévention et contrôle réanimation 

References

  1. 1.
    Degenhardt L, Bucello C, Mathers B, Briegleb C, Ali H, Hickman M, et al. Mortality among regular or dependent users of heroin and other opioids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Addiction 2011;106(1):32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischer B, Rehm J, Brissette S, Brochu S, Bruneau J, El-Guebaly N, et al. Illicit opioid use in Canada: Comparing social, health, and drug use characteristics of untreated users in five cities (OPICAN study). J Urban Health 2005;82(2):250–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Public Health Agency of Canada. I-Track: Enhanced Surveillance of Risk Behaviours among People who Inject Drugs. Phase I Report, August 2006. Ottawa, ON: PHAC, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pollini RA, McCall L, Mehta SH, Celentano DD, Vlahov D, Strathdee SA. Response to overdose among injection drug users. Am J Prev Med 2006;31(3):261–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Community-based opioid overdose prevention programs providing naloxone - United States, 2010. MMWR 2012;61(6):101–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Albert S, Brason FW, 2nd, Sanford CK, Dasgupta N, Graham J, Lovette B. Project Lazarus: Community-based overdose prevention in rural North Carolina. Pain Med 2011;12(Suppl. 2):S77–S85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bennett AS, Bell A, Tomedi L, Hulsey EG, Kral AH. Characteristics of an overdose prevention, response, and naloxone distribution program in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. J Urban Health 2011;88(6):1020–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dettmer K, Saunders B, Strang J. Take home naloxone and the prevention of deaths from opiate overdose: Two pilot schemes. BMJ 2001;322(7291):895–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doe-Simkins M, Walley AY, Epstein A, Moyer P. Saved by the nose: Bystanderadministered intranasal naloxone hydrochloride for opioid overdose. Am J Public Health 2009;99(5):788–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Enteen L, Bauer J, McLean R, Wheeler E, Huriaux E, Kral AH, et al. Overdose prevention and naloxone prescription for opioid users in San Francisco. J Urban Health 2010;87(6):931–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galea S, Worthington N, Piper TM, Nandi VV, Curtis M, Rosenthal DM. Provision of naloxone to injection drug users as an overdose prevention strategy: Early evidence from a pilot study in New York City. Addict Behav 2006;31(5):907–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green TC, Heimer R, Grau LE. Distinguishing signs of opioid overdose and indication for naloxone: An evaluation of six overdose training and naloxone distribution programs in the United States. Addiction 2008;103(6):979–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaston RL, Best D, Manning V, Day E. Can we prevent drug related deaths by training opioid users to recognise and manage overdoses? Harm Reduct J 2009;6:26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maxwell S, Bigg D, Stanczykiewicz K, Carlberg-Racich S. Prescribing naloxone to actively injecting heroin users: A program to reduce heroin overdose deaths. J Addict Dis 2006;25(3):89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McAuley A, Lindsay G, Woods M, Louttit D. Responsible management and use of a personal take-home naloxone supply: A pilot project. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 2010;17(4):388–99 (27 ref).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Piper TM, Stancliff S, Rudenstine S, Sherman S, Nandi V, Clear A, et al. Evaluation of a naloxone distribution and administration program in New York City. Subst Use Misuse 2008;43(7):858–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seal KH, Thawley R, Gee L, Bamberger J, Kral AH, Ciccarone D, et al. Naloxone distribution and cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for injection drug users to prevent heroin overdose death: A pilot intervention study. J Urban Health 2005;82(2):303–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sherman SG, Gann DS, Tobin KE, Latkin CA, Welsh C, Bielenson P. “The life they save may be mine”: Diffusion of overdose prevention information from a city sponsored programme. Int J Drug Policy 2009;20(2):137–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Strang J, Manning V, Mayet S, Best D, Titherington E, Santana L, et al. Overdose training and take-home naloxone for opiate users: Prospective cohort study of impact on knowledge and attitudes and subsequent management of overdoses. Addiction 2008;103(10):1648–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tobin KE, Sherman SG, Beilenson P, Welsh C, Latkin CA. Evaluation of the Staying Alive programme: Training injection drug users to properly administer naloxone and save lives. Int J Drug Policy 2009;20(2):131–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wagner KD, Valente TW, Casanova M, Partovi SM, Mendenhall BM, Hundley JH, et al. Evaluation of an overdose prevention and response training programme for injection drug users in the Skid Row area of Los Angeles, CA. Int J Drug Policy 2010;21(3):186–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yokell MA, Green TC, Bowman S, McKenzie M, Rich JD. Opioid overdose prevention and naloxone distribution in Rhode Island. Med Health Rhode Island 2011;94(8):240–42.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    National Institute on Drug Abuse. Epidemiologic Trends in Drug Abuse, Proceedings of the Community Epidemiology Work Group, Volume II, June 2009.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    City of Toronto. The Toronto Drug Strategy: A Comprehensive Approach to Alcohol and Other Drugs. Toronto, ON: City of Toronto, 2005.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ng E, Boelhouwer L, Hopkins S. Investigating Naloxone (Narcan) Peer Distribution as an Overdose Harm Reduction Strategy in Toronto. Toronto: Toronto Public Health, 2007.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vanden Hoek TL, Morrison LJ, Shuster M, Donnino M, Sinz E, Lavonas EJ, et al. Part 12: Cardiac arrest in special situations: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2010;122(18 Suppl 3):S829–S861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eberle B, Dick WF, Schneider T, Wisser G, Doetsch S, Tzanova I. Checking the carotid pulse check: Diagnostic accuracy of first responders in patients with and without a pulse. Resuscitation 1996;33(2):107–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Becker LB, Berg RA, Pepe PE, Idris AH, Aufderheide TP, Barnes TA, et al. A reappraisal of mouth-to-mouth ventilation during bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A statement for healthcare professionals from the Ventilation Working Group of the Basic Life Support and Pediatric Life Support Subcommittees, American Heart Association. Resuscitation 1997;35(3):189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kerr T, Fairbairn N, Tyndall M, Marsh D, Li K, Montaner J, et al. Predictors of non-fatal overdose among a cohort of polysubstance-using injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007;87(1):39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Borgbjerg FM, Nielsen K, Franks J. Experimental pain stimulates respiration and attenuates morphine-induced respiratory depression: A controlled study in human volunteers. Pain 1996;64(1):123–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pamela N. Leece
    • 1
  • Shaun Hopkins
    • 2
    Email author
  • Chantel Marshall
    • 2
  • Aaron Orkin
    • 1
    • 3
  • Margaret A. Gassanov
    • 2
  • Rita M. Shahin
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Public Health and Preventive Medicine Residency ProgramUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Toronto Public Health - The WorksTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Dalla Lana School of Public HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations