I am very interested to get a breakdown of the discussion
Well here we go!
Firstly, my notes from Dr. Wodak's talk:
* An injecting room will attract users at high risk of contracting disease or overdosing and will help reduce high risk behavior. Additionally, many of these users may never have been in the healthcare system before and the room offers them an opportunity to perhaps get a foot in the door with regards to treatment services.
* Previous injecting rooms (including internationally) have had a high rate of acceptance by residents, businesses and police even if it took time for them to reach these levels.
* There would be safe, hygienic conditions and internationally there has not been a single fatality by OD at an injecting room. There are also no serious negative consequences such as increased drug use or promotion of drug use.
* Injecting rooms reduce risky behaviors and increase knowledge of safer use. For example,
- Frequent attendance of an injecting room lead to a 70% decrease in sharing of syringes
- Decrease in injecting related injuries including bacterial infection, though it is difficult to monitor infective disease transmission rates due to a lack of facilities.
* Decreased OD's, with a conservative estimate of 4-10 lives saved per year by the injecting room.
* The rate of emergencies at the injecting room in Sydney was around 0.5-0.7 per 1000 injections.
* In Vancouver, there was a 35% decrease in deaths within 500 meters of their Drug Consumption Room (DCR), and a 9% reduction beyond that 500m range.
*So basically, improved access to healthcare, increased drug education among users, increased rates of admission to detox, decreased ambulance call-outs and decreased heath care expenses as a result of the reduction in OD's and deaths.
* Decreased use of drugs in public, depending on access to a DCR and it's hours and capacity.
* Decrease in discarded syringes in the community, and an increase in public perception of the DCR over time as benefits are seen.
* There is an increased impact of a DCR if there is a political consensus on it.
* No data on whether DCR's send the wrong message.
* No legal challenges to IV rooms yet despite controversies.
* In Vancouver, the benefit:cost ratio of their DCR was 5.12:1, saving over $6,000,000 in public spending.
* In Sydney, the estimated benefit/cost ratio was 0.72 to 1.19, but with implementation of greater efficiency could reach from 1.20 to 1.97
* Evidence shows effectiveness, safety and cost effectiveness.
* These rooms only need to be required near major drug markets.
Here are my notes from the talk by Dr. Ingrid van Beek, AM, who was the former medical director of the King's Cross (KX) injecting room.
* Development of this policy has been slow.
* Other states reluctant to introduce DCR's.
* Internationally there are 90 DCR's in 8 countries; mainly in heavy drug market areas.
* Homelessness associated with street IV'ing.
* Royal Wood corruption inquiry brought IV use into public view, KX room resulted
* 10% of of drug related deaths in Sydney were in KX (not sure if I got this note right).
* High community/political support for the KX DCR.
* Currently 46% QLD support, higher near heavy drug market areas, e.g. Fortitude Valley
* Initial problems with low levels of knowledge about DCR's in the public
* High profile criticism from tabloids, shock jocks, Christian and family groups, etc...
* There is still high funding for groups such as Drug Free Australia, runs against a harm reduction policy.
* Illicit drug use 'not pretty'.
* Continual need for a high level of public advocacy.
* At KX, there have been issues with confidentially being breached, e.g. tabloids showing photos of people leaving the DCR.
*Users cite security, hygiene, confidentiality as attractions to the KX DCR.
* KX offers counselling services.
* 12,675 regular users in 10 years, 10/week
* 9043 referrals to health/social welfare
* Heroin shortage confounds numbers
* 2008 economic analysis showed MSIC given massive savings to health system; 2:1 ratio
* Effect is localized
* Need to be located at major drug problem areas
* Could be implemented as part of NSP
* Would need legislative change; decriminalization.
* Is political, community climate and drug culture ready for legal change?
* Economic review if <162 visits
* Trial status lifted on KX DCR, but still only the KX room with yearly reviews.
* Government too conservative.
* News Ltd policy of opposing the KX Medically Supervised Injecting Center (MSIC).
* Increased gentrification of KX.
* Situation regarding drugs not as acute anymore in KX area.
* NSW Premier says there are no plans to close the room.
* Uncertainty still exists though over the future of KX.
* Lack of optimism towards progressive drug policy.
* Does pressing MSIC agenda take away from other HR issues?
* Aust. Little progress since 2000
* Uniting Care NSW running the MSIC
And finally, some brief notes from Ruth Birgin, a HR consultant who serves on the boards of the Queensland Injectors Health Network and the Queensland Intravenous AIDS Association (QuIVAA):
* Right now, the idea of an injecting room in QLD could be considered a 'pipeline dream'.
* OD data from QLD 'unreliable'
* 2-3 OD callings/week in valley
* The Valley is a major drug supply area
* 99% of a small sample population say they would use such a room if it existed in Fortitude Valley.
* 33-52% of all IV use is on the streets.
* At least 2 call-outs a week to dispose of syringes that have been publicly discarded.
* Would favor modern/mobile rooms
* Drug users would be assimilated into the community with greater access to healthcare and social services.
* Chance of nonhygeine, OD, public harassment if users continue to IV on the streets.
So there you go. It was a very interesting night, and you can also read a press release here:
http://www.qccl.org.au/documents/Media_AW_11Aug11_Does_Bne_Need_MSIC.pdf
Would love to get some feedback on what other BL'ers think of these notes.