Andrew Kestler1, Jane Buxton2, Gray Meckling3, Amanda Giesler4, Michelle Lee5, Kirsten Fuller6, Hong Quian7, Dalya Marks8, Frank Scheuermeyer9. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Electronic address: andrew.kestler@ubc.ca. 2. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. School of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. Department of Emergency Medicine, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 7. Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcomes Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 8. London School of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene. 9. Department of Emergency Medicine, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although the World Health Organization recommends take-home naloxone to address the increasing global burden of opioid-related deaths, few emergency departments (EDs) offer a take-home naloxone program. We seek to determine the take-home naloxone acceptance rate among ED patients at high risk of opioid overdose and to examine factors associated with acceptance. METHODS: At a single urban ED, consecutive eligible patients at risk of opioid overdose were invited to complete a survey about opioid use, overdose experience, and take-home naloxone awareness, and then offered take-home naloxone. The primary outcome was acceptance of take-home naloxone, including the kit and standardized patient training. Univariate and multivariable logistic analyses were used to evaluate factors associated with acceptance. RESULTS: Of 241 eligible patients approached, 201 (83.4%) completed the questionnaire. Three-quarters of respondents used injection drugs, 37% were women, and 26% identified as "Indigenous." Of 201 respondents, 137 (68.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 61.7% to 74.7%) accepted take-home naloxone. Multivariable analysis revealed that factors associated with take-home naloxone acceptance included witnessing overdose in others (odds ratio [OR] 4.77; 95% CI 2.25 to 10.09), concern about own overdose death (OR 3.71; 95% CI 1.34 to 10.23), female sex (OR 2.50; 95% CI 1.21 to 5.17), and injection drug use (OR 2.22; 95% CI 1.06 to 4.67). CONCLUSION: A two-thirds ED take-home naloxone acceptance rate in patients using opioids should encourage all EDs to dispense take-home naloxone. ED-based take-home naloxone programs have the potential to improve access to take-home naloxone and awareness in individuals most vulnerable to overdoses.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although the World Health Organization recommends take-home naloxone to address the increasing global burden of opioid-related deaths, few emergency departments (EDs) offer a take-home naloxone program. We seek to determine the take-home naloxone acceptance rate among ED patients at high risk of opioid overdose and to examine factors associated with acceptance. METHODS: At a single urban ED, consecutive eligible patients at risk of opioid overdose were invited to complete a survey about opioid use, overdose experience, and take-home naloxone awareness, and then offered take-home naloxone. The primary outcome was acceptance of take-home naloxone, including the kit and standardized patient training. Univariate and multivariable logistic analyses were used to evaluate factors associated with acceptance. RESULTS: Of 241 eligible patients approached, 201 (83.4%) completed the questionnaire. Three-quarters of respondents used injection drugs, 37% were women, and 26% identified as "Indigenous." Of 201 respondents, 137 (68.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 61.7% to 74.7%) accepted take-home naloxone. Multivariable analysis revealed that factors associated with take-home naloxone acceptance included witnessing overdose in others (odds ratio [OR] 4.77; 95% CI 2.25 to 10.09), concern about own overdose death (OR 3.71; 95% CI 1.34 to 10.23), female sex (OR 2.50; 95% CI 1.21 to 5.17), and injection drug use (OR 2.22; 95% CI 1.06 to 4.67). CONCLUSION: A two-thirds ED take-home naloxone acceptance rate in patients using opioids should encourage all EDs to dispense take-home naloxone. ED-based take-home naloxone programs have the potential to improve access to take-home naloxone and awareness in individuals most vulnerable to overdoses.
Authors: Andrea Jakubowski; Alexander Pappas; Lee Isaacsohn; Felipe Castillo; Mariya Masyukova; Richard Silvera; Louisa Holaday; Evan Rausch; Sameen Farooq; Keith T Veltri; Chinazo O Cunningham; Marcus A Bachhuber Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Frank X Scheuermeyer; Eric Grafstein; Jane Buxton; Keith Ahamad; Mark Lysyshyn; Stan DeVlaming; Gerrit Prinsloo; Christopher Van Veen; Andrew Kestler; Reka Gustafson Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Leslie A Lenert; Vivienne Zhu; Lindsey Jennings; Jenna L McCauley; Jihad S Obeid; Ralph Ward; Saeed Hassanpour; Lisa A Marsch; Michael Hogarth; Perry Shipman; Daniel R Harris; Jeffery C Talbert Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2022-06-30
Authors: Alexander H Gunn; Zachary P W Smothers; Nicole Schramm-Sapyta; Caroline E Freiermuth; Mark MacEachern; Andrew J Muzyk Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2018-09-10
Authors: Jaclyn M W Hughto; Lily K Gordon; Thomas J Stopka; Patricia Case; Wilson R Palacios; Abigail Tapper; Traci C Green Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Lauren Lipira; Gillian Leichtling; Ryan R Cook; Judith M Leahy; E Roberto Orellana; P Todd Korthuis; Timothy W Menza Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 4.852