New campaign aims to protect and educate students about drug taking.

Nicki Killeen, HSE Project Manager of Emerging Drugs Trends, discusses the Safer Student Nights campaign. [5 minute audio

Drug use, harm-reduction practices and attitudes toward the utilisation of drug safety testing services in an Irish cohort of festival-goers.

BACKGROUND: Festival drug-related deaths are a growing public health concern. AIM: To examine drug use and related harm-reduction practices and attitudes towards utilisation of drug safety testing services. METHODS: Data collection took place over the 2019 festival season (June-October). The questionnaire was self-reported. Data was gathered via the online survey, which was promoted through online and social media platforms and outlets. Social media communication methods were used to reach the targeted population more effectively. RESULTS: A total of 1193 Irish festival attendees over the age of 18 completed an anonymous online survey. Alcohol, MDMA powder/crystals, ecstasy pills and cocaine were the highest reported drugs used by Irish festival attendees. The vast majority of participants reported polysubstance use (86.8%/n = 1036). Forty percent of participants (39.98%/n = 477) reported having had sex following the use of a drug at a festival; of these, 66% (n = 316) said that the sex was unprotected. Most participants (84.0%/n = 1003) engaged in some form of harm reduction when taking drugs at festivals. Overwhelmingly, participants reported a willingness to engage with drug-checking services. The vast majority (96.3%; n = 1149) and would use drug checking services more than three-quarters (75.1%/n = 897) reported that they would use an 'amnesty bin' for drugs if it were part of an alert system to notify if dangerous drugs are in circulation. A chi-square test of Independence was conducted to examine whether age and utilisation of drug safety testing service a festival were independent. Moreover, when all cases are taken together, the difference between testing modalities (onsite, offsite and amnesty bin) shows a significant difference p < 001 between those who would use onsite and offsite drug testing facilities. CONCLUSION: The evidence from this survey indicates that those young people who use drugs at festivals would be prepared to utilise drug checking services and amnesty bins should help inform the public health response to this important area

A systematized review of drug-checking and related considerations for implementation as a harm reduction intervention.

Drug-checking services (DCS) provide people who use drugs (PWUD) the opportunity to have their substances tested before consumption. Though some suggest they may have adverse consequences, DCS have been introduced as a harm reduction (HR) strategy. A systematized review of the literature regarding drug checking (DC) methods and testing locations, advantages and disadvantages, and legal frameworks with an emphasis on HR was conducted referencing PRISMA guidelines. The primary search of PsychInfo, PubMed, Medline, CINHAL, CORE, and Web of Science was conducted between the 4 and 10 of September 2020, and 51 literature pieces were included in the final article. Most of the literature focuses on the benefits of currently available DCS. The services identified varied significantly in terms of testing methods, location of operation, primary goal, and the surrounding legal framework. The results suggest using multiple drug checking methods to be most beneficial. Further, DCS and the personalized interventions they provide can positively influence behavior change, minimize harm, and reduce mortality. DCS are a viable public health intervention that requires cross-sector support beyond the legal frameworks and testing methods. Services will need to be tailored to meet the needs of their chosen setting, local drug market, and target audience

Consensus recommendations for opioid agonist treatment following the introduction of emergency clinical guidelines in Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency contingency guidelines for opioid agonist treatment (OAT) were introduced in Ireland in March 2020, to ensure rapid and uninterrupted access to treatment while mitigating COVID-19 risk. The contingency guidelines deviated, across multiple clinical domains, from pre-pandemic clinical guidelines published in 2016. The objectives of this study are to (1) identify changes introduced to OAT clinical guidelines in Ireland during the pandemic; and (2) develop consensus on whether the new recommendations should be retained beyond the pandemic, using a national Delphi consensus methodology. METHODS: Clinical guidance recommendations (‘statements’) were generated by comparing the newly established contingency guidelines with the national 2016 Clinical Guidelines for OAT. Over two rounds of on-line Delphi testing, a panel of experts (people currently accessing OAT, psychiatrists, general practitioners, community pharmacists, a nurse, a psychologist and support/key workers) independently rated their agreement with each statement and provided comments. Statements with a median score of 4 or 5 and a lower quartile of ≥4 were classified as having reached consensus. RESULTS: Forty-eight panel members were recruited, with a high participation level at Round 2 (90%, n=43). Consensus was achieved for 12 of the 19 statements at Round 1. The 7 remaining statements were revised, with 2 new statements, resulting in 9 statements at Round 2. Four statements reached consensus at Round 2. The final list includes 16 clinical guidance statements; 9 relating to assessment, 3 to OAT drug choice and dosing, 1 to take-away doses, 2 to overdose prevention and 1 to the continuation of e-prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of stakeholders involved in the delivery and receipt of OAT agreed on 16 clinical guidance statements for inclusion in OAT clinical guidelines as we move beyond the pandemic, rather than reverting to pre-pandemic guidelines. The agreed statements relate to facilitating safe access to OAT with minimal waiting time, supporting patient-centred care to promote health and well-being, and preventing drug overdose. Notably, consensus was not achieved for OAT drug dosage and frequency of urine testing during the stabilisation and maintenance phase of care

Development of quality indicators for the continued and safe delivery of Opioid Agonist Treatment (OAT), throughout and beyond COVID-19, using a Delphi Consensus technique [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]

Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) is the most effective treatment for opioid dependence, although it relies heavily on regular face-to-face healthcare delivery. Following the emergence of COVID-19, policies were rapidly changed in Ireland to reduce the risk of contracting the virus for both clients and treatment providers. From March 2020, the Health Service Executive (HSE) National Social Inclusion Office introduced a series of national contingency guidelines, to ensure fast and uninterrupted access to OAT while balancing efforts to mitigate COVID-19 risks. The Programme for Government 2020 states they will retain many of the measures introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce waiting times in accessing treatment services and reduce overdose mortality. It is therefore essential to examine the impacts, benefits and unintended consequences of the special measures introduced during COVID-19 at a national level, thus informing which measures can and should be sustained throughout and beyond COVID-19 to support effective, safe and patient-centered care promoting the health and wellbeing of all people with opioid dependence. The aim of this project is to identify priorities for quality improvements which will inform clinical decision making throughout and beyond the pandemic. This will be achieved through a Delphi consensus study. Quality indicators will be identified by comparing the national contingency guidelines with the national 2016 Clinical Guidelines. The project steering group will review the proposed indicators, and the agreed quality indicators will be integrated into an on-line Delphi questionnaire. One hundred participants will be invited to form the Delphi consensus panel and will include a wide range of stakeholders, including people accessing OAT services, general practitioners, pharmacists and outreach workers. Evidence generated from this study will inform national policy decisions in relation to improving quality of care in OAT