BackgroundDrug use is associated with increased morbidity and mortality but people who use drugs experience significant barriers to care. Data are needed about the care experiences of people who use drugs to inform interventions and quality improvement initiatives. The objective of this study is to describe and characterize the experience of acute care for people who use drugs.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative descriptive study. We recruited people with a history of active drug use at the time of an admission to an acute care hospital, who were living with HIV or hepatitis C, in Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. Data were collected in 2014 and 2015 through semi-structured interviews, audio-recorded and transcribed, and analyzed thematically.ResultsTwenty-four adults (18 men, 6 women) participated. Participants predominantly recounted experiences of stigma and challenges accessing care. We present the identified themes in two overarching domains of interest: perceived effect of drug use on hospital care and impact of care experiences on future healthcare interactions. Participants described significant barriers to pain management, often resulting in inconsistent and inadequate pain management. They described various strategies to navigate access and receipt of healthcare from being “an easy patient” to self-advocacy. Negative experiences influenced their willingness to seek care, often resulting in delayed care seeking and targeting of certain hospitals.ConclusionDrug use was experienced as a barrier at all stages of hospital care. Interventions to decrease stigma and improve our consistency and approach to pain management are necessary to improve the quality of care and care experiences of those who use drugs.

No abstract

No abstract

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is growing in popularity as a research strategy to engage communities affected by health issues. Although much has been written about the benefits of using CBPR with diverse groups, this research has usually taken place in community-based organizations which offer social services and programs. The purpose of this article is to explore the opportunities and challenges encountered during a CBPR project conducted in a small hospital serving people living with HIV and addictions issues. The structure of hospital-based care delivery required the team to account for participants' health-related limitations, including adopting recruitment strategies built on clinical care, and modifying the original research design to better protect participant confidentiality in a small space. Although CBPR offers an important strategy for researching with members of hospitalized communities, it requires research teams to develop context-relevant approaches to ethically engaging community members that recognize the ways clinical space mediates the research process.

Background Substance use significantly impacts health and healthcare of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV), especially their ability to remain in hospital following admission. Supervised injection services (SIS) reduce overdoses and drug-related harms, but are not often provided within hospitals/outpatient programs. Leading us to question, what are PLHIV’s perceptions of hospital-based SIS? Methods This mixed-methods study explored feasibility and acceptability of implementing SIS at Casey House, a Toronto-based specialty HIV hospital, from the perspective of its in/outpatient clients. We conducted a survey, examining clients’ (n = 92) demand for, and acceptability of, hospital-based SIS. Following this, we hosted two focus groups (n = 14) and one-on-one interviews (n = 8) with clients which explored benefits/drawbacks of in-hospital SIS, wherein participants experienced guided tours of a demonstration SIS space and/or presentations of evidence about impacts of SIS. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results Among survey participants, 76.1% (n = 70) identified as cis-male and over half (n = 49;54.4%) had been a hospital client for 2 years or less. Nearly half (48.8%) knew about clients injecting in/near Casey House, while 23.6% witnessed it. Survey participants were more supportive of SIS for inpatients (76.1%) than for outpatients (68.5%); most (74.7%) reported SIS implementation would not impact their level of service use at Casey House, while some predicted coming more often (16.1%) and others less often (9.2%). Most focus group/interview participants, believed SIS would enhance safety by reducing health harms (e.g. overdose), increasing transparency between clients and clinicians about substance use, and helping retain clients in care. Debate arose about who (e.g., in/outpatients vs. non-clients) should have access to hospital-based SIS and how implementation may shift organizational priorities/resources away from services not specific to drug use. Conclusions Our data showed widespread support of, and need for, hospital-based SIS among client stakeholders; however, attempts to reduce negative impacts on non-drug using clients need to be considered in the balance of implementation plans. Given the increased risks of morbidity and mortality for PLHIV who inject drugs as well as the problems in retaining them in care in a hospital setting, SIS is a key component of improving care for this marginalized group.