Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the opioid overdose crisis in the US. Rural communities have been disproportionately affected by opioid use and people who use drugs in these settings may be acutely vulnerable to pandemic-related disruptions due to high rates of poverty, social isolation, and pervasive resource limitations. Methods: We performed a mixed-methods study to assess the impact of the pandemic in a convenience sample of people who use drugs in rural Illinois. We conducted 50 surveys capturing demographics, drug availability, drug use, sharing practices, and mental health symptoms. In total, 19 qualitative interviews were performed to further explore COVID-19 knowledge, impact on personal and community life, drug acquisition and use, overdose, and protective substance use adaptations. Results: Drug use increased during the pandemic, including the use of fentanyl products such as gel encapsulated “beans” and “buttons”. Disruptions in supply, including the decreased availability of heroin, increased methamphetamine costs and a concomitant rise in local methamphetamine production, and possible fentanyl contamination of methamphetamine was reported. Participants reported increased drug use alone, experience and/or witness of overdose, depression, anxiety, and loneliness. Consistent access to harm reduction services, including naloxone and fentanyl test strips, was highlighted as a source of hope and community resiliency. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic period was characterized by changing drug availability, increased overdose risk, and other drug-related harms faced by people who use drugs in rural areas. Our findings emphasize the importance of ensuring access to harm reduction services, including overdose prevention and drug checking for this vulnerable population.

Introduction: As opioid overdose deaths continue to rise, the emergency department (ED) remains an important point of contact for many at risk for overdose. In this study our purpose was to better understand the attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of ED nurses in caring for patients with opioid use disorder (OUD). We hypothesized a difference in training received and attitudes toward caring for patients with OUD between nurses with <5 years and ≥6 years of clinical experience. Methods: We conducted a survey among ED nurses in a large academic medical center from May–July 2022. All ED staff nurses were surveyed. Data entry instruments for the nursing surveys were programmed in Qualtrics, and we analyzed results R using a chi-square test or Fisher exact test tocompare nurses with <5 years and ≥6 years of clinical experience. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: We distributed 74 surveys, and 69 were completed (93%). Attitudes toward naloxone distribution from the ED were positive, with 72% of respondents reporting they were “very” or “extremely” supportive of distributing naloxone kits to individuals at risk of overdose. While attitudes were positive, barriers included limited time, lack of system support, and cost. Level of comfort in caring for patients with OUD was high, with 78% of respondents “very” or “extremely” comfortable. More education is needed on overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) with respondents 38% and 45% “a little” or“somewhat” comfortable, respectively. Nurses with <5 years of experience reported receiving more training on OEND in nursing school compared to those with ≥6 years of experience (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in reported attitudes, knowledge, or comfort in caring for patients with OUD. Conclusion: In this single-center survey, we found ED nurses were supportive of overdose education and naloxone distribution. There are opportunities for targeted education and addressing systemic barriers to OEND. All interventions should be evaluated to gauge impact on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.

Introduction: To expand access to naloxone, the state of Illinois implemented a standing order allowing registered pharmacies to dispense the drug without an individual prescription. To participate under the standing order, pharmacies were required to opt in through a formal registration process. In our study we aimed to evaluate the availability and price of naloxone at registered pharmacies. Methods: This was a prospective, de-identified, cross-sectional telephone survey. Trained interviewers posed as potential customers and used a standardized script to determine the availability of naloxone between February–December, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as a pharmacy indicating it carried naloxone, currently had naloxone in stock, and was able to dispense it without anindividual prescription. Results: Of 948 registered pharmacies, 886 (93.5%) were successfully contacted. Of those, 792 (83.4%) carried naloxone, 659 (74.4%) had naloxone in stock, and 472 (53.3%) allowed purchase without a prescription. Naloxone nasal spray (86.4%) was the formulation most commonly stocked. Chain pharmacies were more likely to carry naloxone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97–5.01, P < 0.01) and have naloxone in stock (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76–4.20, P < 0.01), but no more likely to dispense it without a prescription. Pharmacies in higher population areas (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99–0.99, P < 0.05) and rural areas adjacent to metropolitan areas (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 025–0.98, P < 0.05) were less likely to have naloxone available without a prescription. Associations of naloxone availability based on other urbanicity designations, overdose count, and overdose rate were not significant. Conclusion: Among pharmacies in Illinois that formally registered to dispense naloxone without a prescription, the availability of naloxone remains limited. Additional interventions may be needed to maximize the potential impact of a statewide standing order.

Introduction: Buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) has positive outcomes including reducing opioid-related morbidity and mortality. In March 2018, 58 of 102 counties in Illinois lacked access to medication for OUD. Methods: Rush University created a fellowship training program with financial incentives to help expand buprenorphine treatment in Illinois. Fellows first completed an online waiver course, then attended an in-person intensive training weekend, and finally participated in a 9-month webinar series. Demographic and prescribing data were collected from fellows, as well as a comparison group of providers outside the fellowship who only completed a waiver training. Results: At the fellowship's end, 31 of 37 fellows (84%) reported they were actively prescribing buprenorphine. Of the 23 fellows who were not prescribing at the fellowship's beginning, 17 (74%) initiated prescribing by the end. Among the 16 nonfellowship subjects who only completed a waiver training, just two (13%) reported they were prescribing buprenorphine at the study period's end. Discussion: Our study indicates that providers need more training beyond the waiver to initiate buprenorphine prescribing. When resources are available to address a health crisis such as OUD, this model offers an innovative mechanism for delivering continuing medical education that produces outcomes quickly.