Research Paper
Perspectives on supervised injection facilities among service industry employees in New York City: A qualitative exploration

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2018.08.016Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Approximately 100 supervised injection facilities (SIFs) operate in 66 cities around the world to reduce overdose deaths, the spread of disease and public disorder, though none legally exist in the United States. Public bathrooms are among the most common public places for injection reported by people who inject drugs in New York City (NYC) and service industry employees (SIEs) inadvertently become first-responders when overdoses occur in business bathrooms. The goal of this study was to assess SIE acceptability of SIFs and the perceived effects that SIFs would have on them, their colleagues, their businesses and communities.

Methods

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 SIEs recruited through convenience sampling throughout NYC. Participants were provided with peer-reviewed scientific evidence prior to discussing SIFs. Data were analysed using a hybrid deductive and inductive approach.

Results

Most SIEs had encountered drug use (93%, n = 14/15) and syringes (73%, n = 11/15) in their business bathrooms and three had encountered unresponsive individuals. Nearly all workers (93%, n = 14/15) were supportive of SIFs and believed SIFs would reduce injection drug use in their business bathrooms. Participants also believed that ‘not in my backyard’ arguments from community boards may impede SIF operation.

Conclusions

Service industry employees are critical stakeholders due to their exposure to occupational health hazards related to public injection. Those interviewed were amenable to SIF operation as a form of occupational harm reduction and their experiences provide an important dimension to the political debate surrounding SIFs.

Introduction

Drug overdose mortality rates per year in the United States (US) have nearly tripled between 1999–2014, rising to 64,070 deaths in 2016 with opioids involved in over 75% (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2017; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2017; Rudd, Seth, David, & Scholl, 2016). New York City (NYC) is home to some of the most robust harm reduction and outreach programs in the US but continues to see escalating rates of unintentional drug overdose deaths in part due to the increasing presence of fentanyl in street heroin (New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2017).

When people who inject drugs (PWID) do not have a private place to prepare and inject drugs, they actively search for public spaces that reduce their exposure to non-injectors and law enforcement (Fitzgerald, 2005; Parkin & Coomber, 2011; Parkin, 2013; Rhodes, 2002). Reports suggest that public bathrooms1 are among the most commonly used public injecting locations among PWID in NYC (Injection Drug Users Health Alliance, 2015; New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2010, 2013). Some of the motivating factors for the use of this type of location are immediacy and privacy (Crabtree et al., 2013; Parkin & Coomber, 2010; Parkin, 2013) in addition to their cleanliness compared to other alternatives such as parks and alleyways. The privacy afforded by public bathrooms can minimize physical harms to PWID by providing them with adequate time for drug preparation and injection, which can in turn reduce the risk of abscesses and vein damage associated with rushed or interrupted injections (Bourgois, 1998; Cooper, Moore, Gruskin, & Krieger, 2005; DeBeck et al., 2009; Gibson et al., 2011; Marshall, Kerr, Qi, Montaner, & Wood, 2010; Parkin & Coomber, 2011; Salmon et al., 2009; Small, Rhodes, Wood, & Kerr, 2007).

People who inject drugs in public bathrooms typically attempt to be discreet, but establishments may be alerted to their presence in the event of an overdose or when someone finds an improperly disposed syringe. The use of public bathrooms for injection drug use has become so common in some parts of the US and Europe that hospitals (Ramsay, 2002) and businesses (BBC News, 2003; Rubinkam, 2018; Steves, 2010; Watts, 2018) have responded by installing blue lights in an attempt to deter drug use though research suggests that this intervention is not effective in deterring PWID (Crabtree et al., 2013; Parkin & Coomber, 2010; Parkin, 2013). Other businesses have installed locks on bathroom doors that workers can unlock at their discretion, potentially exposing themselves and their business to discriminatory lawsuits. Discriminatory bathroom policies also create a false sense of control as bathroom users can hold the door for one another which leaves workers unaware of who is in the bathroom and for how long. The use of techniques that have questionable effectiveness suggests that those who manage these public bathrooms have few options when trying to curb injection drug use.

In response to public injection and increasing overdose mortality, communities throughout the US are considering implementing supervised injection facilities (SIFs) though none legally operate within the country as of August 2018 (Foderaro, 2016; Goldberg, 2016; Gutman, 2016; Sabatini, 2016). Supervised injection facilities are legally-operated venues where people can consume pre-obtained drugs in a hygienic environment under the supervision of medical staff and harm reduction workers who can manage overdoses and educate PWID on safer injection techniques. The conventional setting for SIFs are low-threshold, non-judgemental and assist in linking PWID to a variety of health and social services (Potier, Laprévote, Dubois-Arber, Cottencin, & Rolland, 2014). Though none currently operate in the US, approximately 100 SIFs operate in 66 cities throughout the world (Drug Policy Alliance, 2016). Research suggests that SIFs are capable of successfully managing overdoses, reducing overdose deaths, reducing HIV/HCV risk behaviour, increasing uptake of addiction treatment, as well as reducing public injection and public disorder (Kerr, Tyndall, Li, Montaner, & Wood, 2005; Marshall, Milloy, Wood, Montaner, & Kerr, 2011; Petrar et al., 2007; Salmon, Thein, Kimber, Kaldor, & Maher, 2007; Small, Van Borek, Fairbairn, Wood, & Kerr, 2009; Stoltz et al., 2007; Wood et al., 2004; Wood, Tyndall, Zhang, Montaner, & Kerr, 2007; Wood, Tyndall, Zhang et al., 2006). Furthermore, SIFs are cost-effective and have not been found to increase drug injecting or drug-related crime in the neighbourhoods in which they operate (Andresen & Boyd, 2010; Freeman et al., 2005; Irwin, Jozaghi, Bluthenthal, & Kral, 2017; Irwin, Jozaghi, Weir et al., 2017; Jozaghi, Reid, Andresen, & Juneau, 2014; Kerr et al., 2006, 2007; Wood, Tyndall, Lai, Montaner, & Kerr, 2006).

Despite the impact that SIFs may have on public bathroom drug use, little is known about the experiences of workers who regularly encounter PWID in their business bathrooms. A better understanding of worker experiences may help guide public policies directed at alleviating the community harms associated with injection drug use and improve worker and customer safety. A previous study of business managers in NYC revealed that 58% of the managers interviewed had encountered drug use in their business bathroom within the past six months and that more than one-third had also encountered improperly discarded syringes (Wolfson-Stofko, Bennett, Elliott, & Curtis, 2017). Additionally, 90% had no training in overdose response & naloxone administration though 14% had encountered someone who was unresponsive, presumably due to drug use, within the past six months (Wolfson-Stofko et al., 2017). More information about these workers’ experiences may be valuable for the SIF feasibility studies that have been requested by policymakers (Goldberg, 2016; Larson, Padron, Mason, & Bogaczyk, 2017; Wilkinson & Fan, 2016) and community groups.

Previous research focused on community stakeholder perspectives of SIFs (Strike, Watson, Kolla, Penn, & Bayoumi, 2015; Wenger, Arreola, & Kral, 2011) have included business owners but not business managers and staff that directly interact with PWID and are, by default, first-responders to overdoses and improperly disposed syringes. Here we explore business manager and staff (collectively referred to as service industry employees (SIEs) herein) perspectives on SIFs in relation to their experiences with injection drug use occurring in their business bathrooms.

Section snippets

Study design & population

This exploratory qualitative study was based on 15 interviews conducted between September 2016 and May 2017 with 15 SIEs (10 managers and 5 staff), from 13 different businesses (each from a different business location) in NYC. Participants provided written informed consent and were compensated $40 for their time. All study procedures were approved by National Development & Research Institutes’ Institutional Review Board and all names reported in this study are pseudonyms.

The eligibility

Participant & business characteristics

Participants’ mean age was 35 years (range = 27–53 years); 67% identified as female; and 60% (n = 9/15) identified as White while the remaining six participants identified as Asian, Biracial, Black, Latino and Guyanese. They had worked at their place of business an average of 4.8 years (range = 1–9 years) and 10 were employed at coffee shops, two at cafés, one at a music store, one at a laundromat and one at a physician’s office.

The businesses in this study were located in four different Tiers.

Discussion

According to participants in this study, the operation of a SIF in a community will yield a variety of advantages and some concerns. The SIEs interviewed in this study overwhelmingly believed that the operation of SIFs near their businesses would reduce the amount of drug use occurring in their business bathrooms as well as their encounters with improperly discarded syringes and unresponsive individuals. This strong support from SIEs working in neighbourhoods with varying levels of overdose

Limitations

The results from this study cannot be generalized to all of NYC, given that this study utilized convenience sampling and consisted of a small sample size. Recruitment from neighbourhoods with historically high drug overdose death rates proved to be challenging because many of these SIEs were sceptical of the anonymity and confidentiality guaranteed by the study and were concerned that participation might jeopardize their employment. However, the goal of this study was to generate preliminary

Conclusion

This study found that SIEs in NYC inadvertently become first-responders in the event of an overdose and incur considerable risks through their exposure to improperly discarded syringes. Nearly all SIEs were supportive of SIFs and believed that SIF operation would reduce drug use, overdose and syringe encounters in their places of business. Providing SIEs and other stakeholders with peer-reviewed scientific evidence prior to inquiring about the potential effects of a public health initiative may

Author contributions

BWS designed and conceptualized most of the project, led recruitment, conducted the interviews, analysed the qualitative data and took the lead in writing the manuscript. LE assisted in project conceptualization, interview guide development, qualitative data analysis and manuscript preparation. ASB assisted in project conceptualization, interview guide development, qualitative data analysis and manuscript preparation. RC assisted in participant recruitment, project conceptualization and

Conflict of interest

The authors of this paper declare no conflict of interest. The opinions of the authors do not necessarily reflect those of National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Development & Research Institutes, Inc., New York University, or City University of New York.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Efram Thompson for his assistance with recruitment. The authors would also like to thank the Center for Drug Use and HIV Research (CDUHR) for support and guidance. This research was supported by a CDUHR pilot project grant (5P30DA011041-20) and Ruth L. Kirschstein National Service Award (5T32DA007233) awarded to the first author, as well as R01DA036754 awarded to study co-author Alex S. Bennet from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

References (65)

  • C. Potier et al.

    Supervised injection services: What has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review

    Drug and Alcohol Dependence

    (2014)
  • T. Rhodes

    The ‘risk environment’: A framework for understanding and reducing drug-related harm

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2002)
  • A.M. Salmon et al.

    Injecting-related injury and disease among clients of a supervised injecting facility

    Drug and Alcohol Dependence

    (2009)
  • A.M. Salmon et al.

    Five years on: What are the community perceptions of drug-related public amenity following the establishment of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre?

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2007)
  • W. Small et al.

    Public injection settings in Vancouver: Physical environment, social context and risk

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2007)
  • L.D. Wenger et al.

    The prospect of implementing a safer injection facility in San Francisco: Perspectives of community stakeholders

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2011)
  • B. Wolfson-Stofko et al.

    Drug use in business bathrooms: An exploratory study of manager encounters in New York City

    International Journal of Drug Policy

    (2017)
  • BBC News (Producer). (2003, July 31, 2018). Blue light to stop drugs-users. Retrieved from...
  • P. Bourgois

    The moral economies of homeless heroin addicts: Confronting ethnography, HIV risk, and everyday violence in San Francisco shooting encampments

    Substance Use & Misuse

    (1998)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    Provisional counts of drug overdose deaths, as of 8/6/2017

    (2017)
  • K. Charmaz

    Constructivist and objectivist grounded theory

    (2000)
  • A. Crabtree et al.

    A qualitative study of the perceived effects of blue lights in washrooms on people who use injection drugs

    Harm Reduction Journal

    (2013)
  • K. DeBeck et al.

    Public injecting among a cohort of injecting drug users in Vancouver, Canada

    Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

    (2009)
  • Drug Policy Alliance

    Fact sheet: Supervised injection facilities

    (2016)
  • Foderaro, LW. (2016, March 22, 2016). Ithaca’s anti-heroin plan: Open a site to shoot heroin. New York Times. Retrieved...
  • K. Freeman et al.

    The impact of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) on crime

    Drug and Alcohol Review

    (2005)
  • E.K. Gibson et al.

    A mixed methods approach to delineating and understanding injection practices among clientele of a Victoria, British Columbia needle exchange program

    Drug and Alcohol Review

    (2011)
  • L.M. Givens

    Convenience sample

    The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods

    (2008)
  • B. Glaser et al.

    The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research

    (1967)
  • Goldberg, D., Pazmino, G. (2016, September 28, 2016). Council, de Blasio administration to study supervised injection...
  • Goodman, J.D. (2018, May 21, 2018). Opioid crisis compels New York to look north for answers. New York Times. Retrieved...
  • Gutman, D. (2016, January 27, 2017). Seattle, King County move to open nation’s first safe injection sites for drug...
  • Cited by (5)

    • Community perspectives on supervised consumption sites: Insights from four U.S. counties deeply affected by opioids

      2021, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
      Citation Excerpt :

      With respect to the perspective of other stakeholders, our results offered a similar mix of community concerns as those reported in San Francisco by Wenger et al. (2011). This study also found evidence that some community stakeholders view SCSs as potentially beneficial, akin to survey findings by Roth et al. (2019) in Philadelphia and by Wolfson-Stofko et al. (2018) in New York City, although the level of support for SCSs in our study may not have reached the levels reported in these two studies. Furthermore, regarding the feasibility of implementing SCSs, many key informants, including those who generally expressed support for SCSs, also believed that their communities might not currently accept SCSs.

    • Implementing harm reduction in non-urban communities affected by opioids and polysubstance use: A qualitative study exploring challenges and mitigating strategies

      2021, International Journal of Drug Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, community acceptance of harm reduction principles and services varies widely, and stigma against people who use drugs continues to be high, especially within rural communities (Baker et al., 2019; Rigg, Monnat & Chavez, 2018)., Existing studies have primarily reported data from urban communities (Allen, Ruiz & O'Rourke, 2015; Barry et al., 2019; Hathaway & Tousaw, 2008; Leece et al., 2019; Roth et al., 2019; Strike, Myers & Millson, 2004, 2016, 2015; Wenger, Arreola & Kral, 2011; Wolfson-Stofko, Elliott, Bennett, Curtis & Gwadz, 2018). This study is based on in-depth interviews with behavioral health, harm reduction, drug treatment, and public health professionals in cities, towns and surrounding rural communities in Rhode Island (RI) and Massachusetts (MA), two states that have been disproportionately impacted by opioid use, polysubstance use, and injection drug use (Valente et al., 2020).

    View full text