Introduction Supervised consumption services (SCS), intended to reduce morbidity and mortality among people who inject drugs, have been implemented in a variety of delivery models. We describe and compare access to and uptake of co-located and external services among clients accessing harm reduction-embedded (HR-embedded) and community health center-embedded (CHC-embedded) SCS models. Methods Cross-sectional baseline data were collected between November 2018 and March 2020 as part of a cohort of people who inject drugs in Toronto, Canada designed to evaluate one HR-embedded and two CHC-embedded SCS. This analysis was restricted to clients who reported accessing these SCS more than once in the previous 6 months. Participants were classified as HR-embedded or CHC-embedded SCS clients based on self-reported usage patterns. Client characteristics, as well as access to onsite services and referral and uptake of external services, were compared by SCS model. Results Among 469 SCS clients, 305 (65.0%) primarily used HR-embedded SCS and 164 (35.0%) primarily used CHC-embedded SCS. Compared to clients accessing CHC-embedded SCS, clients accessing HR-embedded SCS were somewhat younger (37.6 vs. 41.4, p < 0.001), more likely to report fentanyl as their primary injected drug (62.6% vs. 42.7%, p < 0.001), and visited SCS more often (49.5% vs. 25.6% ≥ daily, p < 0.001). HR-embedded SCS clients were more likely to access harm reduction services onsite compared to CHC-embedded SCS clients (94.8% vs. 89.6%, p = 0.04), while CHC-embedded SCS clients were more likely to access non-harm reduction services onsite (57.3% vs. 26.6%, p < 0.001). For external services, HR-embedded SCS clients were more likely to receive a referral (p = 0.03) but less likely to report referral uptake (p = 0.009). Conclusions Clients accessing HR-embedded and CHC-embedded SCS were largely demographically similar but had different drug and SCS use patterns, with CHC-embedded SCS clients using the site less frequently. While clients of CHC-embedded SCS reported greater access to ancillary health services onsite, external service use remained moderate overall, underscoring the importance of co-location and support for clients with system navigation. Importantly, lack of capacity in services across the system may impact ability of staff to make referrals and/or the ability of clients to take up a referral.

Despite the availability of publicly funded hepatitis C (HCV) treatment in Canada, treatment gaps persist, particularly among people who inject drugs. We estimate correlates of HCV care cascade engagement (testing, diagnosis, and treatment) among people who inject drugs in Toronto, Canada and examine the effect of accessing differing supervised consumption service (SCS) models on self-reported HCV testing and treatment. This is a cross-sectional baseline analysis of 701 people who inject drugs surveyed in the Toronto, Ontario integrated Supervised Injection Services (OiSIS-Toronto) study between November 2018 and March 2020. We examine correlates of self-reported HCV care cascade outcomes including SCS model, demographic, socio-structural, drug use, and harm reduction characteristics. Overall, 647 participants (92%) reported ever receiving HCV testing, of whom 336 (52%) had been diagnosed with HCV. Among participants who reported ever being diagnosed with HCV, 281 (84%) reported chronic HCV, of whom 130 (46%) reported HCV treatment uptake and 151 (54%) remained untreated. Compared to those with no SCS use, participants who had ever injected at an integrated SCS model with co-located HCV care had greater prevalence of both ever receiving HCV testing (adjusted prevalence ratio[aPR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.24) and ever receiving HCV treatment (aPR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.04-2.69). Over half of participants diagnosed with chronic HCV reported remaining untreated. Our findings suggest that integrated SCS models | 161 GREENWALD et al.