Evaluation of an emergency safe supply drugs and managed alcohol program in COVID-19 isolation hotel shelters for people experiencing homelessness ================================================================================================================================================== * Thomas D. Brothers * Malcolm Leaman * Matthew Bonn * Dan Lewer * Jacqueline Atkinson * John Fraser * Amy Gillis * Michael Gniewek * Leisha Hawker * Heather Hayman * Peter Jorna * David Martell * Tiffany O’Donnell * Helen Rivers-Bowerman * Leah Genge ## ABSTRACT **Background** During a COVID-19 outbreak in the congregate shelter system in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, a multidisciplinary health care team provided an emergency “safe supply” of pharmaceutical-grade medications and beverage-grade alcohol to facilitate isolation in COVID-19 hotel shelters for residents who are dependent on these substances. We aimed to evaluate (a) substances and dosages provided, and (b) effectiveness and safety of the program. **Methods** We retrospectively reviewed medical records of all COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents during May 2021. We extracted data on medication and alcohol dosages provided each day. The primary outcome was residents prematurely leaving isolation against public health orders. Adverse events included (a) overdose; (b) intoxication; and (c) diversion, selling, or sharing of medications or alcohol. **Results** Over 25 days, 77 isolation hotel residents were assessed (mean age 42 ± 14 years; 24% women). Sixty-two (81%) residents were provided medications, alcohol, or cigarettes. Seventeen residents (22%) received opioid agonist treatment medications (methadone, buprenorphine, or slow-release oral morphine) and 27 (35%) received hydromorphone tablets. Thirty-one (40%) residents received stimulant tablets with methylphenidate (27; 35%), dextroamphetamine (8; 10%), or lisdexamfetamine (2; 3%). Six residents (8%) received benzodiazepines. Forty-two (55%) residents received alcohol, including 41 (53%) with strong beer, three (3%) with wine, and one (1%) with hard liquor. Over 14 days in isolation, mean daily dosages increased of hydromorphone (45 ± 32 to 57 ± 42mg), methylphenidate (51 ± 28 to 77 ± 37mg), dextroamphetamine (33 ± 16 to 46 ± 13mg), and alcohol (12.3 ± 7.6 to 13.0 ± 6.9 standard drinks). Six residents (8%) left isolation prematurely, but four of those residents returned. Over 1,059 person-days in isolation, there were zero overdoses. Documented concerns regarding intoxication occurred six times (0.005 events/person-day) and medication diversion or sharing three times (0.003 events/person-day). **Conclusions** An emergency safe supply and managed alcohol program, paired with housing, was associated with low rates of adverse events and high rates of successful completion of the 14-day isolation period in COVID-19 isolation hotel shelters. This supports the effectiveness and safety of emergency safe supply prescribing and managed alcohol in this setting. MESH Term Keywords * Substance Use * Drug Addiction * Harm Reduction * Substance Abuse, Intravenous * Substance-Related Disorders * Needle-Exchange Programs * Opiate Substitution Treatment * Coronavirus ## BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health restrictions have had a disproportionate impact on people who use drugs and/or alcohol (1–3). Disruptions to drug supply routes have led to an increasingly toxic and unpredictable drug supply, while physical distancing requirements cause more people to use drugs alone (where they cannot be resuscitated if they overdose) and have reduced capacity and operating hours at harm reduction and addiction treatment programs (4–6). People who are dependent on substances may be unable to follow public health directives to isolate if they have been exposed to COVID-19, due to withdrawal symptoms or compulsive use (1). For people who use drugs and/or alcohol and are also experiencing homelessness, staying in congregate shelters increases risks of COVID-19 infection; people in this situation would be unable to isolate unless given a private place to stay (7,8). To facilitate physical distancing and decrease risks of COVID-19 infection, withdrawal, and overdose, Canadian clinicians developed rapid guidelines to provide a regular, safe supply of pharmaceutical-grade drugs and of beverage-grade alcohol to people who are dependent on these substances (9–12). The rationale for providing an alternative “safe supply” of substances to remove harms caused by reliance on the criminalized, unregulated, and poisonous drug market was first advanced by the Canadian Association of People who Used Drugs (CAPUD)(1,13,14) and developed clinically by Sereda and colleagues(15) and by Tyndall and colleagues(16), before the COVID-19 pandemic. Provisional prescribing of safe supply medications and managed alcohol to facilitate COVID-19 related physical distancing or isolation has also been termed “risk mitigation” or “pandemic prescribing” (1,9,17–19). The uptake of these prescribing guidelines on a population level is under evaluation (17,20), but the clinical safety and effectiveness of this approach for people in COVID-19 isolation has not been demonstrated. In May 2021, there was a COVID-19 outbreak in the congregate shelter housing system in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and all residents in shelters experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks were moved to isolation hotel shelters for 14 days. A multidisciplinary health care team provided emergency, temporary safe supply medications and beverage-grade alcohol to facilitate isolation for residents who are dependent on these substances. We aimed to describe the organization and delivery of an emergency, provisional safe supply drug and managed alcohol program during a COVID-19 outbreak in the congregate shelter system in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. We evaluated safety of the program through the frequency of substance-related adverse events (including fatal and non-fatal overdose), and effectiveness through the rate of premature resident-initiated discharge from isolation against Public Health orders. ## METHODS ### Setting and data sources This study comprises a retrospective case series of all COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents admitted during the Spring 2021 COVID-19 outbreak in the congregate shelter system in Halifax, Nova Scotia. This manuscript is reported in accordance with the Strengthening The Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist (21). People who stayed at shelters identified to have COVID-19 outbreaks were moved to isolation in hotels funded by the provincial government. At this stage in the pandemic, they were mandated to isolate for 14 days under authority of the Nova Scotia *Health Protection Act*. Isolation hotel shelters were in the city centre, several blocks away from residents’ usual congregate shelters. Residents of a given shelter typically stayed on the same hotel floor, with shelter staff continuing to support them there. Data were extracted from the shared electronic medical record, including progress notes, electronic prescriptions, and messaging. Using structured chart review, each resident’s information was extracted in duplicate, once by a graduate student researcher (ML) and once by a clinician with experience prescribing these medications (TDB, MG, or AG). Discrepancies were resolved by TDB. ### Program description Mobile Outreach Street Health (MOSH) organized a team of physicians and nurse practitioners with experience in addiction medicine and harm reduction, established a weekly clinical care coverage schedule, and provided access to a shared digital electronic medical record. MOSH was established in 2009 to provide outreach primary care to people experiencing homelessness and people who use drugs in Halifax; the organization has long-standing relationships with the city’s shelters and many of the residents. All residents being moved to isolation were referred to the harm reduction prescribing team for assessment. Nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians performed intake assessments on substance use and health history; most assessments were done over the phone, but some were done in person. Prescribers had access to province-wide pharmacy information system to confirm patient reports of prescribed medications, including opioid agonist treatment (OAT). Some patients were previously seen by MOSH or the associated North End Community Health Centre, and in this case had existing medical records the team could access. Physicians and nurse practitioners prescribed pharmaceutical-grade substances generally following the BC Centre on Substance Use (BCCSU) Guidelines: Risk Mitigation in the Context of Dual Public Health Emergencies document (9), and beverage-grade alcohol according to MOSH managed alcohol program’s protocols. See Table 1 for a summary of prescribing guidance used by the MOSH team. Residents were aware that both the hotel-based private housing and the safe supply medications would only be provided for 14 days while they were isolating under Public Health orders. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.14.22269074/T1) Table 1. Summary of prescribing guidelines used in emergency safe supply drug and managed alcohol program in COVID isolation hotels in Halifax. The BCCSU guidelines were developed in British Columbia, which has a more potent and unpredictable illicit drug supply than Nova Scotia; as a result, prescribers did not know whether the recommended dosing ranges in the BCCSU guidelines would be required or appropriate. Compared to Nova Scotia, British Columbia has much higher rates of illicitly manufactured fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, novel benzodiazepines, and methamphetamine availability and use (22). People who use drugs in Nova Scotia most often use hydromorphone tablets (immediate release or extended release) and cocaine, though rates of illicitly manufactured fentanyl use are increasing (23–26). Largely due to these regional differences in the illicit drug supply, British Columbia experienced a rate of opioid poisoning deaths (39.4 per 100,000 people) eight times higher than Nova Scotia (4.9 per 100,000) from January to June, 2021 (26). Prescribed medications could be taken orally, or crushed and injected or snorted; prescribers reviewed with residents that oral tablets were not designed to be crushed and injected, and provided guidance on safer use within a harm reduction framework. Resident preferences as to specific brands or formulations (e.g. those that might be more soluble in water to facilitate safer injecting) were followed as closely as possible. Liquid hydromorphone for injection use is not included in the BCCSU guidelines and was not considered here; this oversight has been criticized by people who use drugs because of the relatively increased harms associated with injecting oral tablets (27). Cannabis withdrawal is not mentioned in the BCCSU guidelines and the prescribing team initially underappreciated the importance of cannabis cravings and withdrawal symptoms (28), once other needs were met. While trying to facilitate funding for cannabis deliveries to the hotels, prescribers began to offer nabilone as an agonist replacement therapy to residents with cannabis withdrawal symptoms and residents began to order their own cannabis. Medications were delivered daily by a local community pharmacist with experience with OAT and a harm reduction philosophy of care. Alcohol was delivered daily by the MOSH managed alcohol program outreach team or dispensed by shelter staff on site. For residents who reported intense binge drinking, alcohol dispensing would be divided into two times per day. Prescribers performed frequent phone follow-ups to adjust dosages, usually daily for the first three days and then as needed. MOSH nurses and/or prescribers would assess residents in person if needed. The team communicated via mobile secure messaging app and discussed challenging cases by phone and virtual video conferences. Mainline Needle Exchange, a local harm reduction outreach organization, provided all residents receiving safe supply medications with take-home naloxone kits, sterile drug preparation and injecting equipment, and support. No dedicated safe consumption space was created; instead, residents were encouraged to try “virtual spotting”(29) with friends or family or with the National Overdose Response Service (NORS) phone line (30), or otherwise to let shelter staff know they were going to be using so they could check in soon after. There were no costs to residents at the COVID-19 isolation hotels. Medications were covered either through public drug insurance plans (for those who were enrolled) or by Nova Scotia Public Health (for those without insurance). Alcohol costs were initially covered by the MOSH managed alcohol program, and then through provincial government funding. Sterile injecting equipment and take-home naloxone kits are free to everyone in Nova Scotia, funded by the provincial government. ### Measures #### Descriptive characteristics We extracted data on resident demographic characteristics including age and gender. Race and Indigenous status were not routinely evaluated in the medical assessments and therefore were not available for extraction in the medical record. We extracted data on dosages of medications dispensed and calculated daily dosages and averages among patients receiving the medications. Alcohol was converted into Canadian standard drink units (17.05mL or 0.5765oz of pure ethanol).(31) #### Primary outcome The primary outcome was the frequency of residents leaving the isolation hotel shelter against public health orders before the mandatory 14 day isolation period was completed. #### Adverse events We extracted data on adverse events including documentation of (a) overdose; (b) intoxication; and (c) diversion, sharing, or selling of safe supply medications or alcohol. Overdose was defined as fatal or non-fatal drug or alcohol poisoning that would require basic life support, administration of naloxone or oxygen, and/or transfer to the emergency department. Intoxication and diversion, sharing, or selling was documented in medical records as part of prescribers’ assessment and plan to continue or change dosages of medications and alcohol, based on prescribers’ clinical impression (usually by telephone), by resident report, or by *ad hoc* descriptions by shelter support staff, the pharmacist, or the managed alcohol program outreach team. ### Analysis We used Microsoft Excel for data management and to calculate summary statistics and R 3.6.3 for data visualizations. We described individual trajectories by creating separate plots for each resident’s daily dosages of opioids, stimulants, and alcohol. To compare different substances on the same visual scale, we transformed individual’s daily dosages into a percentage of the maximum daily dosage of that substance received across the whole sample; for example, the maximum daily hydromorphone dosage across all residents was 158mg, so an individual resident receiving 48mg of hydromorphone in a day would have a percentage value of 16mg ÷ 158mg x 100% = 30% for that day. ## RESULTS ### Participants Over 25 days, 77 residents were admitted to COVID-19 isolation hotel shelters and referred to the medical team (Table 2). In total, there were 1,059 person-days in isolation after medical assessment. Most participants were men, and average age differed by gender. Mean age for men was 46 ± 14 years, and for women was 30 ± 10 years. After intake assessment, 15 residents (19%) were determined to have no concerns about substance withdrawal or dependence while in isolation and were given no medications, alcohol, or cigarettes. Sixty-two residents (81%) were provided medications, alcohol, or cigarettes, summarized by day of isolation in Figure 1. View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.14.22269074/T2) Table 2. Descriptive characteristics of the sample of residents in COVID-19 isolation. ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.14.22269074/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.14.22269074/F1) Figure 1. Number of COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents receiving each category of safe supply medications or managed alcohol during 14 days of isolation. Benzodiazepines include clonazepam and lorazepam. Stimulants include methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine, and lisdexamfetamine. Opioids include opioid agonist treatment medications (methadone, buprenorphine, or slow-release morphine) and hydromorphone. Alcohol includes strong beer, wine, or hard liquor. Cigarettes were the most commonly provided substance (64 residents; 83% of total sample), followed by alcohol (42 residents; 55% of total sample), and hydromorphone tablets (27 residents; 35% of total sample). Seventeen residents (22%) received any OAT, including eight who initiated OAT medications in the isolation hotel shelters. All eight of these residents initiated SROM, and no residents initiated methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone. Twelve residents received both OAT and hydromorphone tablets on the same day (71% of residents receiving OAT); four of these residents were already on OAT before isolation. Two residents accepted offers of nicotine replacement therapy, including one resident who also had cigarettes delivered. ### Safe supply medication and managed alcohol dosages Among the 27 residents receiving hydromorphone, average dosages increased over residents’ time in isolation from day one (mean 45mg ± 32mg; median 32mg; range 16 - 158mg daily) to day 14 (mean 57mg ± 42mg; median 48mg; range 16 - 158mg daily) (Supplementary Figure S1). Three (12%) of these 27 residents were prescribed hydromorphone dosages above the BCCSU guideline suggested upper limit of 112mg daily (14 × 8mg tablets). Individual daily dosage trajectories for hydromorphone and OAT are visualized in Figure 2, plotted as percentages of the maximum daily dosage of each medication across the whole sample. The maximum daily dosage for methadone was 195mg, for buprenorphine was 12mg, for SROM was 800mg; and for hydromorphone was 158mg. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.14.22269074/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.14.22269074/F2) Figure 2. COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents’ daily dosage trajectories for safe supply hydromorphone and opioid agonist treatment medications. Individual daily medication dosages are plotted as percentages of the maximum daily dosages of each substance across the whole sample (i.e., methadone 195mg; buprenorphine 12mg; SROM 800mg; hydromorphone 158mg). Dark grey boxes represent days where substances could not be provided, either because resident was away from isolation or because of delayed medical assessment. SROM: slow-release oral morphine. Among residents receiving stimulants, average dosages also increased over time (Supplementary Figure S2). Methylphenidate daily dosages increased from day one (mean 51mg ± 28mg; median 40mg; range 10 - 107mg) to day 14 (mean 77mg ± 37mg; median 80mg; range 15 - 160mg). Dextroamphetamine daily dosages increased from day one (mean 33mg ± 16mg; median 30mg; range 20 – 60mg) to day 14 (mean 46mg ± 13mg; median 40mg; range 30 – 60mg). Four (15%) of 27 residents receiving methylphenidate were prescribed doses above the BCCSU guideline suggested upper limit of 100mg daily. Of eight residents receiving dextroamphetamine, one (13%) required dosages above the guideline suggested upper limit of 120mg daily. Individual daily dosage trajectories for stimulant medications are visualized in Figure 3, plotted as percentages of the maximum daily dosage of each medication across the whole sample (methylphenidate 160mg, dextroamphetamine 80mg, and lisdexamfetamine 60mg). ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.14.22269074/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.14.22269074/F3) Figure 3. COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents’ daily dosage trajectories for safe supply stimulant medications. Individual daily medication dosages are plotted as percentages of the maximum daily dosages of each substance across the whole sample (i.e., methylphenidate 160mg; dextroamphetamine 80mg; lisdexamfetamine 60mg). Dark grey boxes represent days where substances could not be provided, either because resident was away from isolation or because of delayed medical assessment. Average daily alcohol dosages increased slightly over time from day one (mean 12.3 ± 7.6 standard drinks; median 11.25 standard drinks; range 1.25 - 33.75 standard drinks) to day 14 (mean 13.0 ± 6.9 standard drinks; median 13.1 standard drinks; range 1.25 - 30.75 standard drinks) (Supplementary Figure S3). Individual daily dosage trajectories for alcohol are visualized in Figure 4, plotted as percentages of the maximum daily dosage of alcohol across the whole sample (37.5 standard drinks). ![Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.14.22269074/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.14.22269074/F4) Figure 4. COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents’ daily dosage trajectories for managed alcohol. Individual daily standard drink dosages are plotted as percentages of the maximum daily dosage of alcohol across the whole sample (i.e., 37.5 standard drinks). Dark grey boxes represent days where substances could not be provided, either because resident was away from isolation or because of delayed medical assessment. Benzodiazepine dosages were relatively stable. Clonazepam increased slightly from day one (mean 1.67 ± 1.15; median 1mg; range 1 – 3mg) to day 14 (mean 2.00 ± 1.41mg; median 1mg; range 1 - 4mg) and the only lorazepam daily dosage was stable at 1mg. Nabilone dosages increased from mean 2mg ± 0mg on day one to mean 2.79mg ± 1.25mg on day 14, while an unknown number of residents had cannabis delivered to the isolation hotel shelters. ### Primary outcome Among the 77 isolation hotel residents, six (8%) left against public health orders. Four of these six soon returned and remained in isolation, resulting in two (3%) persistent premature discharges from isolation. ### Adverse events Over 1,059 person-days in isolation, there were zero overdoses in the isolation hotel shelters. Concerns regarding intoxication were documented six times (0.005 events per person-day); four of these residents with documented intoxication were provided alcohol and four were provided opioids (three with OAT plus hydromorphone, and one with hydromorphone only). Concerns regarding diversion, sharing, or selling of medications was documented three times (0.003 events per person-day), including among two residents who also had documented intoxication. All three of these residents were provided multiple substances, including opioids, stimulants, and alcohol. ## DISCUSSION Among residents of a COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter for people experiencing homelessness, we found that an emergency, provisional safe supply program (i.e. prescribing pharmaceutical-grade medications and beverage-grade alcohol) was associated with low rates of adverse events and high rates of successful completion of the 14-day isolation period. No shelter residents experienced an overdose during their stay. We identified medication dosage ranges that generally fell within those recommended in “risk mitigation” prescribing guidelines, which were urgently produced in response to evolving risks of COVID-19. This supports the safety and effectiveness of this approach in this setting. The safe supply drug and alcohol prescribing practices described in this evaluation are a recent development. While the relative safety of medications and alcohol dispensed for unwitnessed consumption has not been previously well-described in the literature, the practice is an extension of the evidence from witnessed consumption settings (14,15,18,25,32,33). Witnessed injectable OAT (iOAT) with liquid hydromorphone or diacetylmorphine (Heroin) has a robust evidence-based and has been incorporated into Canadian clinical practice guidelines for opioid use disorder (34,35). Qualitative studies have evaluated the benefits of witnessed hydromorphone tablet consumption, which is more flexible and less resource-intensive than witnessed iOAT (36,37). A recent study from Ottawa, Canada, describes positive outcomes for people with severe opioid use disorder who are provided hydromorphone iOAT along with supported housing (38). Benefits of managed alcohol programs are also clearly established for people with severe alcohol use disorder, and particularly people who drink non-beverage alcohol (39–41). Some existing managed alcohol programs include daily and/or unwitnessed ingestion (42). The dosing strategy informed by the BCCSU guidelines were appropriate for most patients in this setting (Halifax, Nova Scotia) where the illicit drug supply is comprised primarily of pharmaceutical hydromorphone and of cocaine, with relatively little fentanyl and methamphetamine availability in the community (23,24,43,44). In other settings, dosages may need to be higher than those recommended in these guidelines or different medications may be for effective. For example, a recent survey of people who use drugs in British Columbia, Canada, showed that in that province most would prefer heroin or fentanyl safe supply over prescription opioids like hydromorphone (45). For the emergency safe supply program in Halifax described in our study, many residents were able to report their usual daily use of non-prescribed hydromorphone tablets which could be matched with the safe supply prescription. While the mean dosages of hydromorphone, methylphenidate, and dextroamphetamine increased over residents’ 14 days in isolation, many patients stayed at the same dose throughout. As there were no overdoses and very few premature discharges from isolation, this suggests that residents knew how much medication they would need and were willing to work with the prescriber if started too low. While these medications were not offered as substance use disorder treatment, the options available to patients (in terms of medications, dosages, and brands or formulations) to help facilitate goals of successful 14 day isolation represented elements of shared decision-making and patient-centered care (25,46,47). It is notable that with the broad selection of options available to avoid reliance on the criminalized drug supply, no residents chose to start methadone or buprenorphine OAT. This differs from other settings like acute care hospitals, where patients with medical complications of opioid use disorder may not initially be treatment-seeking, but are often motivated to engage in OAT when offered (24,25,48). Prior research in the hospital setting has shown that offering SROM in addition to methadone and buprenorphine may increase treatment uptake (25). Descriptions of harm reduction practices in COVID-19 isolation shelters have been reported from Toronto(49) and Hamilton(50,51), Canada; Boston(49,52) and San Francisco(53,54), USA; Lisbon, Portugal (55); and Tshwane, South Africa (56). The other Canadian harm reduction programs are most like the one described in our study. The Toronto program supported isolation shelter residents with an emergency managed alcohol program, safe supply hydromorphone prescribing, opioid agonist treatment, take-home naloxone kits, sterile injecting equipment, and telephone or in-person check-ins; specific medication and alcohol dosages and frequencies are not reported. They established a supervised consumption site for witnessed injections, after applying for federal approval. The Toronto program reported 4 suspected overdose deaths among 1700 admissions (0.2%), which were all unwitnessed (49). The Hamilton program supported residents isolating at a men’s congregate shelter with sterile injecting equipment, take-home naloxone, a flexible OAT delivery model, and hydromorphone safe supply prescribing (51). A community organization set up a supervised consumption space within the shelter where residents could consume their prescribed hydromorphone. The Hamilton program reported no fatal overdoses and three non-fatal overdoses during the month-long intervention (all of which occurred outside the safe consumption site), compared to 20 non-fatal overdoses in the month before the isolation period (51). The Hamilton program description did not mention managed alcohol, and neither report includes the frequency of residents leaving isolation prematurely. In Boston, OAT was offered but safe supply prescriptions and alcohol were not (49,52). Naloxone and sterile syringes were distributed at discharge from the isolation shelters, but not provided to residents during their stay. In San Francisco, prescribers offered OAT (with buprenorphine or methadone), medical cannabis, nicotine replacement therapy, and managed alcohol (53). Residents were provided with sterile injecting equipment and naloxone, and $20 gift cards for completing their stay. Opioids, stimulants, and benzodiazepines were not offered. Some San Francisco shelter programs limited managed alcohol to a maximum dosage of 10 standard drinks per day (54,54), which was below the mean and median dosages for the residents in Halifax in our study. Nineteen percent of San Francisco residents left isolation shelters prematurely (53), which was higher than the 3-8% in Halifax. In Lisbon, harm reduction organizations provided support, sterile injecting equipment, naloxone, and a mobile drug consumption room to shelter residents. Residents had access to benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal management, but no safe supply or managed alcohol program was provided (55). In Tshwane, prescribers provided methadone in the stadium-based emergency shelter. The local needle exchange program was asked not to deliver sterile injecting equipment, as “municipal and national police were actively confiscating needles and the city regarded the concurrent provision of needle and syringe services and [opioid substitution treatment] as a form of mixed messaging” (56). The decision to revoke hotel-based private housing and safe supply medications after 14 days, despite the apparent benefits to individual residents and despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, raises challenging ethical issues (57–59) and prevents evaluation of the potential long-term impact of these housing and safe supply interventions. These decisions were made by government and public health officials independent of the prescribers and study investigators. Our study has important limitations. First, as the decision was made to offer all shelter residents this program for drug and alcohol withdrawal management, there is no control group of residents without this program to compare rates of adverse events or resident-initiated premature discharge from the isolation shelters against public advice. Nevertheless, the rate of premature discharge was lower here than reported in San Francisco, and our findings here of relatively safety are reassuring. Second, as our study relied on retrospective evaluation of medical records, we may be missing data on events (including medication diversion, sharing, or selling) that were not disclosed to shelter staff. The program described here did not have a systemic approach to surveillance or of gathering information on diversion, sharing, or selling from shelter staff. Other study designs, including qualitative interviews, could be used to get a better sense of the scale of medication diversion, sharing, and selling, that was not reported back to the medical team. Third, as our study occurred in a city with relatively little fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine use, the dosing ranges here may not be sufficient in populations with higher drug tolerance and this may limit generalizability. ## Conclusion We found that an emergency, provisional safe supply program providing pharmaceutical-grade medications and beverage-grade alcohol in COVID-19 isolation hotel shelters was associated with low rates of adverse events and of high rates of successful completion of the mandatory 14-day isolation stay. This suggests this approach is safe and effective in this setting. ## Supporting information Supplement [[supplements/269074_file06.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript ## Declarations ### Ethics approval and consent to participate Requirements for full ethics review and individual participant consent were waived by the Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board, who determined this project to be quality assessment (REB FILE #: 1027156). ### Consent for publication Not applicable. ### Availability of data and materials All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. ### Competing interests MB reports personal fees from AbbVie, a pharmaceutical research and development company, and grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, a research-based biopharmaceutical company, outside of the submitted work. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. ### Funding This project had no dedicated funding. TDB is supported by the Dalhousie University Internal Medicine Research Foundation Fellowship, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship (CIHR-FRN# 171259), and through the Research in Addiction Medicine Scholars (RAMS) Program (National Institute of Health/National Institute on Drug Abuse; R25DA033211). DL is funded by a National Institute of Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (DRF-2018–11-ST2-016). Funders had no role in the in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript should be declared. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. ### Author contribution TDB contributed to conceptualization, developed and piloted the data extraction form, performed structured data extraction, validated data extraction, data curation, data analysis, data interpretation, co-wrote the first draft, and project supervision. ML developed and piloted the data extraction form, performed structured data extraction, data curation, and data analysis, and co-wrote the first draft. DL contributed to data analysis and interpretation. AG and MG contributed to conceptualization, data extraction, and interpretation. HR-B contributed to conceptualization, data entry, data curation, data interpretation, and project administration. MB, JA, JF, LH, HH, SH, PJ, DM, TO, and LG contributed to conceptualization and data interpretation. All authors provided critical intellectual input, contributed to revised drafts, and approved the final draft for submission. ## Acknowledgements We acknowledge the essential and compassionate contributions of the wider MOSH team and shelter staff to the success of the isolation hotels. We thank Dr. Claire Bodkin (McMaster University) and Dr. Ashish Thakrar (University of Pennsylvania) for helpful comments on earlier drafts. ## Footnotes * * These authors listed in alphabetical order ## Abbreviations ABV : Alcohol by volume BCCSU : British Columbia Centre on Substance Use MOSH : Mobile Outreach Street Health NORS : National Overdose Response Service OAT : Opioid agonist treatment SROM : Slow-release oral morphine * Received January 14, 2022. * Revision received January 14, 2022. * Accepted January 17, 2022. * © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Bonn M, Palayew A, Bartlett S, Brothers TD, Touesnard N, Tyndall M. Addressing the Syndemic of HIV, Hepatitis C, Overdose, and COVID-19 Among People Who Use Drugs: The Potential Roles for Decriminalization and Safe Supply. J Stud Alcohol Drugs [Internet]. 2020 Sep 1 [cited 2020 Nov 17];81(5):556–60. Available from: [https://www.jsad.com/doi/full/10.15288/jsad.2020.81.556](https://www.jsad.com/doi/full/10.15288/jsad.2020.81.556) 2. 2.Gomes T, Kitchen SA, Murray R. Measuring the Burden of Opioid-Related Mortality in Ontario, Canada, During the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2021 May 26 [cited 2021 Jun 17];4(5):e2112865. Available from: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2780379](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2780379) 3. 3.Dunlop A, Lokuge B, Masters D, Sequeira M, Saul P, Dunlop G, et al. Challenges in maintaining treatment services for people who use drugs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Harm Reduct J [Internet]. 2020 May 6 [cited 2020 Jul 29];17(1):26. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00370-7](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00370-7) 4. 4.Cowan E, Khan MR, Shastry S, Edelman EJ. Conceptualizing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with opioid use disorder: an application of the social ecological model. Addict Sci Clin Pract [Internet]. 2021 Jan 7 [cited 2021 Sep 30];16(1):4. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-020-00210-w](https://doi.org/10.1186/s13722-020-00210-w) 5. 5.Gomes T, Murray R, Kolla G, Leece P, Bansal S, Besharah J, et al. Changing circumstances surrounding opioid-related deaths in Ontario during the COVID-19 pandemic [Internet]. Ontario Drug Policy Research Network; 2021 May [cited 2021 Sep 30]. Available from: [https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/c/2021/changing-circumstances-surrounding-opioid-related-deaths.pdf?sc\_lang=en](https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/c/2021/changing-circumstances-surrounding-opioid-related-deaths.pdf?sc_lang=en) 6. 6.Ali F, Russell C, Nafeh F, Rehm J, LeBlanc S, Elton-Marshall T. Changes in substance supply and use characteristics among people who use drugs (PWUD) during the COVID-19 global pandemic: A national qualitative assessment in Canada. Int J Drug Policy [Internet]. 2021 Jul 1 [cited 2021 Oct 1];93:103237. Available from: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395921001420](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395921001420) 7. 7.Lewer D, Braithwaite I, Bullock M, Eyre MT, White PJ, Aldridge RW, et al. COVID-19 among people experiencing homelessness in England: a modelling study. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Dec 1;8(12):1181–91. 8. 8.Perri M, Dosani N, Hwang SW. COVID-19 and people experiencing homelessness: challenges and mitigation strategies. CMAJ [Internet]. 2020 Jun 29 [cited 2021 Oct 14];192(26):E716–9. Available from: [https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/26/E716](https://www.cmaj.ca/content/192/26/E716) 9. 9.BCCSU. Clinical Guidance Risk Mitigation in the Context of Dual Public Health Emergencies [Internet]. 2020. Available from: [https://www.bccsu.ca/overview-covid-19-risk-mitigation-interim-clinical-guidance/](https://www.bccsu.ca/overview-covid-19-risk-mitigation-interim-clinical-guidance/) 10. 10.Brar R, Bruneau J, Butt P, Goyer M, Lim R, Poulin G, et al. Medications and other clinical approaches to support physical distancing for people who use substances during the COVID-19 pandemic: national rapid guidance [Internet]. Vancouver, B.C.: Canadian Research Initiative on Substance Misuse (CRISM); 2020 Jun [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: [https://crism.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CRISM-Guidance-Medications-and-other-clinical-approaches-22062020-final.pdf](https://crism.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CRISM-Guidance-Medications-and-other-clinical-approaches-22062020-final.pdf) 11. 11.Hyshka E, K. Dong, K. Meador, K. Speed, B. Abele, S. LeBlanc, et al. Supporting people who use substances in shelter settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: national rapid guidance [Internet]. Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Research Initiative on Substance Misuse (CRISM); 2020 May [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: [https://crism.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CRISM-Guidance-Supporting-People-Who-Use-Substances-in-Emergency-Shelter-Settings-V1.pdf](https://crism.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CRISM-Guidance-Supporting-People-Who-Use-Substances-in-Emergency-Shelter-Settings-V1.pdf) 12. 12.Bach P, Robinson S, Sutherland C, Brar R. Innovative strategies to support physical distancing among individuals with active addiction. Lancet Psychiatry [Internet]. 2020 Sep 1 [cited 2021 Oct 13];7(9):731–3. Available from: [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30231-5/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30231-5/fulltext) 13. 13.Canadian Association of People Who Use Drugs (CAPUD). Safe Supply Concept Document [Internet]. 2019 Feb. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5637607](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5637607) 14. 14.Bonn M, Palayew A, Bartlett S, Brothers TD, Touesnard N, Tyndall M. “The Times They Are a-Changin’”: Addressing Common Misconceptions About the Role of Safe Supply in North America’s Overdose Crisis. J Stud Alcohol Drugs [Internet]. 2021 Jan 1 [cited 2021 Oct 13];82(1):158–60. Available from: [https://www.jsad.com/doi/full/10.15288/jsad.2021.82.158](https://www.jsad.com/doi/full/10.15288/jsad.2021.82.158) 15. 15.Hales, J., Kolla, G., Man, T., O’Reilly, E., Rai, N., Sereda, A. Safer Opioid Supply Programs (SOS): A Harm Reduction Informed Guiding Document for Primary Care Teams [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 19]. Available from: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hXRmNaOTB60wbmNqhBi5P\_xxktEZnXFDWKMkJMu5ALM/edit?usp=embed_facebook](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hXRmNaOTB60wbmNqhBi5P_xxktEZnXFDWKMkJMu5ALM/edit?usp=embed_facebook) 16. 16.Tyndall, Mark. An emergency response to the opioid overdose crisis in Canada: a regulated opioid distribution program. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Feb 5];190(2):E35–6. Available from: [https://www.cmaj.ca/content/190/2/E35](https://www.cmaj.ca/content/190/2/E35) 17. 17.Glegg S, McCrae K, Kolla G, Touesnard N, Turnbull J, Brothers TD, et al. “COVID just kind of opened a can of whoop-ass”: The rapid growth of safer supply prescribing during the pandemic documented through an environmental scan of addiction and harm reduction services in Canada. Submitted. 18. 18.Tyndall M. Safer opioid distribution in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Drug Policy [Internet]. 2020 Sep 1 [cited 2020 Nov 17];83:102880. Available from: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095539592030219X](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095539592030219X) 19. 19.Chang J, Agliata J, Guarinieri M. COVID-19 - Enacting a ‘new normal’ for people who use drugs. Int J Drug Policy [Internet]. 2020 Jul 3 [cited 2020 Jul 29]; Available from: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332951/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332951/) 20. 20.Nosyk B, Slaunwhite A, Urbanoski K, Hongdilokkul N, Palis H, Lock K, et al. Evaluation of risk mitigation measures for people with substance use disorders to address the dual public health crises of COVID-19 and overdose in British Columbia: a mixed-method study protocol. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2021 Jun 1 [cited 2021 Oct 13];11(6):e048353. Available from: [https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/6/e048353](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/6/e048353) 21. 21.von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2007 Oct 16 [cited 2021 Oct 14];147(8):573–7. Available from: [https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010) 22. 22.Biggar E, Papamihali K, Leclerc P, Hyshka E, Graham B, Taylor M, et al. Towards cross-Canada monitoring of the unregulated street drug supply. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2021 Sep 15 [cited 2022 Jan 13];21(1):1678. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11757-x](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11757-x) 23. 23.Brothers TD, Mosseler K, Kirkland S, Melanson P, Barrett L, Webster D. Unequal access to opioid agonist treatment and sterile injecting equipment among hospitalized patients with injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis. PLOS ONE. In press. 24. 24.Brothers T, Fraser J, MacAdam E, Hickcox S, L Genge, T O’Donnell, et al. Implementation and evaluation of a novel, unofficial, trainee-organized hospital addiction medicine consultation service. Subst Abuse. 2020 Dec 17;1–8. 25. 25.Brothers TD, Fraser J, MacAdam E, Morgan B, Webster D. Uptake of slow-release oral morphine as opioid agonist treatment among hospitalised patients with opioid use disorder. Drug Alcohol Rev [Internet]. 2021 Aug 4 [cited 2021 Aug 21];Online ahead of print. Available from: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.13365](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.13365) 26. 26.Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses. Opioid-and Stimulant-related Harms in Canada [Internet]. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 2021 Dec [cited 2022 Jan 13]. Available from: [https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/](https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/) 27. 27.Canadian Association for Safe Supply (CASS). Informing your consent: Regarding issues of the safe supply options for opioids in the “Risk Mitigation in the Context of Dual Public Health Emergencies” guideline [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: [https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/unitedforsafesupply/pages/1038/attachments/original/1590636393/Informing\_Your\_Consent\_Regarding\_Issues\_of\_the\_Safe\_Supply\_Options\_for\_Opioids\_in\_theRisk\_Mitigation\_in\_the\_Context\_of\_Dual\_Public\_Health\_EmergenciesGuidelineBriefFinal.pdf?1590636393](https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/unitedforsafesupply/pages/1038/attachments/original/1590636393/Informing\_Your\_Consent\_Regarding\_Issues\_of\_the\_Safe\_Supply\_Options\_for\_Opioids\_in\_theRisk\_Mitigation\_in\_the\_Context\_of\_Dual_Public_Health_EmergenciesGuidelineBriefFinal.pdf?1590636393) 28. 28.Bahji A, Stephenson C, Tyo R, Hawken ER, Seitz DP. Prevalence of Cannabis Withdrawal Symptoms Among People With Regular or Dependent Use of Cannabinoids: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2020 Apr 9 [cited 2021 Oct 14];3(4):e202370. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2370](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2370) 29. 29.Perri M, Kaminski N, Bonn M, Kolla G, Guta A, Bayoumi AM, et al. A qualitative study on overdose response in the era of COVID-19 and beyond: how to spot someone so they never have to use alone. Harm Reduct J [Internet]. 2021 Aug 5 [cited 2021 Oct 13];18(1):85. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00530-3](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00530-3) 30. 30.NATIONAL OVERDOSE RESPONSE SERVICE (NORS) [Internet]. NATIONAL OVERDOSE RESPONSE SERVICE (NORS). [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: [https://www.nors.ca](https://www.nors.ca) 31. 31.Standard Drink Calculator [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 30]. Available from: [http://aodtool.cfar.uvic.ca/index-stddt.html](http://aodtool.cfar.uvic.ca/index-stddt.html) 32. 32.Bonn M, Touesnard N, Cheng B, Pugliese M, Comeau E, Bodkin C, et al. Barriers and facilitators to accessing and providing a safe supply of drugs during COVID-19 and beyond: a scoping review. Submitted. 33. 33.Bonn M, Touesnard N, Cheng B, Pugliese M, Comeau E, Bodkin C, et al. Securing safe supply during COVID-19 and beyond: Scoping review and knowledge mobilization [Internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2021 Jan [cited 2021 Oct 14]. Available from: [https://covid19mentalhealthresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/HERDER\_CMH-KS-Safe-Supply-scoping-review\_manuscript\_2020-11-23\_FINAL.pdf](https://covid19mentalhealthresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/HERDER\_CMH-KS-Safe-Supply-scoping-review_manuscript_2020-11-23_FINAL.pdf) 34. 34.Oviedo-Joekes E, Guh D, Brissette S, Marchand K, MacDonald S, Lock K, et al. Hydromorphone Compared With Diacetylmorphine for Long-term Opioid Dependence: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry [Internet]. 2016 May 1 [cited 2020 Apr 19];73(5):447–55. Available from: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2512237](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2512237) 35. 35.Fairbairn N, Ross J, Trew M, Meador K, Turnbull J, MacDonald S, et al. Injectable opioid agonist treatment for opioid use disorder: a national clinical guideline. CMAJ [Internet]. 2019 Sep 23 [cited 2021 Oct 13];191(38):E1049–56. Available from: [https://www.cmaj.ca/content/191/38/E1049](https://www.cmaj.ca/content/191/38/E1049) 36. 36.Ivsins A, Boyd J, Mayer S, Collins A, Sutherland C, Kerr T, et al. “It’s Helped Me a Lot, Just Like to Stay Alive”: a Qualitative Analysis of Outcomes of a Novel Hydromorphone Tablet Distribution Program in Vancouver, Canada. J Urban Health [Internet]. 2020 Oct 28 [cited 2020 Oct 31]; Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00489-9](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00489-9) 37. 37.Ivsins A, Boyd J, Mayer S, Collins A, Sutherland C, Kerr T, et al. Barriers and facilitators to a novel low-barrier hydromorphone distribution program in Vancouver, Canada: a qualitative study. Drug Alcohol Depend [Internet]. 2020 Nov 1 [cited 2022 Jan 13];216:108202. Available from: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871620303677](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871620303677) 38. 38.Harris MT, Seliga RK, Fairbairn N, Nolan S, Walley AY, Weinstein ZM, et al. Outcomes of Ottawa, Canada’s Managed Opioid Program (MOP) where supervised injectable hydromorphone was paired with assisted housing. Int J Drug Policy [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1 [cited 2021 Oct 1];98:103400. Available from: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395921003054](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395921003054) 39. 39.Stockwell T, Zhao J, Pauly B, Chow C, Vallance K, Wettlaufer A, et al. Trajectories of Alcohol Use and Related Harms for Managed Alcohol Program Participants over 12 Months Compared with Local Controls: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Alcohol Alcohol [Internet]. 2021 Jan 9 [cited 2021 Oct 13];(agaa134). Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agaa134](https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agaa134) 40. 40.Stockwell T, Pauly B (Bernie), Chow C, Erickson RA, Krysowaty B, Roemer A, et al. Does managing the consumption of people with severe alcohol dependence reduce harm? A comparison of participants in six Canadian managed alcohol programs with locally recruited controls. Drug Alcohol Rev [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 Oct 13];37(S1):S159–66. Available from: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.12618](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.12618) 41. 41.Crabtree A, Latham N, Morgan R, Pauly B, Bungay V, Buxton JA. Perceived harms and harm reduction strategies among people who drink non-beverage alcohol: Community-based qualitative research in Vancouver, Canada. Int J Drug Policy [Internet]. 2018 Sep 1 [cited 2021 Oct 13];59:85–93. Available from: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095539591830183X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095539591830183X) 42. 42.Pauly B (Bernie), Vallance K, Wettlaufer A, Chow C, Brown R, Evans J, et al. Community managed alcohol programs in Canada: Overview of key dimensions and implementation. Drug Alcohol Rev [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 Oct 13];37(S1):S132–9. Available from: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.12681](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.12681) 43. 43.Lapointe-Gagner G. Heroin: it’s just not an East Coast thing [Internet]. DavidMcKie.com. 2016 [cited 2022 Jan 7]. Available from: [http://www.davidmckie.com/heroin-its-just-not-an-east-coast-thing/](http://www.davidmckie.com/heroin-its-just-not-an-east-coast-thing/) 44. 44.Schleihauf E, Crabtree K, Dohoo C, Fleming S, McPeake H, Bowes M. Concurrent monitoring of opioid prescribing practices and opioid-related deaths: the context in Nova Scotia, Canada. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can [Internet]. 2018 Sep [cited 2021 Nov 29];38(9):334–8. Available from: [https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/health-promotion-chronic-disease-prevention-canada-research-policy-practice/vol-38-no-9-2018/at-a-glance-concurrent-monitoring-opioid-prescribing-practices-opioid-deaths-nova-scotia.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/health-promotion-chronic-disease-prevention-canada-research-policy-practice/vol-38-no-9-2018/at-a-glance-concurrent-monitoring-opioid-prescribing-practices-opioid-deaths-nova-scotia.html) 45. 45.Ferguson M, Parmar A, Papamihali K, Weng A, Lock K, Buxton JA. Investigating opioid preference to inform safe supply services: A cross sectional study. Int J Drug Policy [Internet]. 2022 Mar 1 [cited 2022 Jan 12];101:103574. Available from: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395921004928](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395921004928) 46. 46.Marchand K, Beaumont S, Westfall J, MacDonald S, Harrison S, Marsh DC, et al. Conceptualizing patient-centered care for substance use disorder treatment: findings from a systematic scoping review. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy [Internet]. 2019 Sep 11 [cited 2020 Jul 29];14(1):37. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-019-0227-0](https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-019-0227-0) 47. 47.Brothers TD, Bonn M. Patient-centred care in opioid agonist treatment could improve outcomes. Can Med Assoc J [Internet]. 2019 Apr 29 [cited 2020 Dec 16];191(17):E460–1. Available from: [http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.190430](http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.190430) 48. 48.Brothers TD, Fraser J, Webster D. Caring for people who inject drugs when they are admitted to hospital. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 2021 Mar 22;193(12):E423–4. 49. 49.Harris MTH, Young S, Barocas J, Bayoumi AM, Caudarella A, Laurence G, et al. A Descriptive Comparison of Substance Use Services in Recovery and Isolation Sites for People Experiencing Homelessness During the COVID-19 Pandemic, Boston and Toronto. Public Health Rep [Internet]. 2021 Sep 1 [cited 2021 Sep 30];136(5):532–7. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549211032974](https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549211032974) 50. 50.Scallan E, Bodkin C, Wiwcharuk J, O’Shea T, Lennox R. Finding stability amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: The impact of emergency temporary housing for people who use drugs. Drug Alcohol Rev [Internet]. 2021 Jun 16 [cited 2021 Oct 1];n/a(n/a). Available from: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.13335](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.13335) 51. 51.Lew B, Bodkin C, Lennox R, O’Shea T, Wiwcharuk G, Turner SD. The impact of an integrated safer use space and safer supply program on non-fatal overdose among emergency shelter residents during a COVID-19 Outbreak: A case study. Submitted. 52. 52.Kimmel SD, Bazzi AR, Barocas JA. Integrating harm reduction and clinical care: Lessons from Covid-19 respite and recuperation facilities. J Subst Abuse Treat [Internet]. 2020 Nov 1 [cited 2021 Oct 17];118:108103. Available from: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740547220303597](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740547220303597) 53. 53.Fuchs JD, Carter HC, Evans J, Graham-Squire D, Imbert E, Bloome J, et al. Assessment of a Hotel-Based COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine Strategy for Persons Experiencing Homelessness. JAMA Netw Open [Internet]. 2021 Mar 2 [cited 2021 Oct 17];4(3):e210490. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0490](https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0490) 54. 54.Ristau J, Mehtani N, Gomez S, Nance M, Keller D, Surlyn C, et al. Successful implementation of managed alcohol programs in the San Francisco Bay Area during the COVID-19 crisis. Subst Abuse [Internet]. 2021 Apr 3 [cited 2021 Oct 17];42(2):140–7. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2021.1892012](https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2021.1892012) 55. 55.Fuertes R, Belo E, Merendeiro C, Curado A, Gautier D, Neto A, et al. Lisbon’s COVID 19 response: harm reduction interventions for people who use alcohol and other drugs in emergency shelters. Harm Reduct J [Internet]. 2021 Jan 25 [cited 2021 Oct 17];18(1):13. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00463-x](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00463-x) 56. 56.Marcus TS, Heese J, Scheibe A, Shelly S, Lalla SX, Hugo JF. Harm reduction in an emergency response to homelessness during South Africa’s COVID-19 lockdown. Harm Reduct J [Internet]. 2020 Aug 24 [cited 2021 Oct 17];17(1):60. Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00404-0](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00404-0) 57. 57.Pisani E. Tilting at windmills and the evidence base on injecting drug use. The Lancet [Internet]. 2010 Jul 24 [cited 2021 Oct 17];376(9737):226–7. Available from: [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61132-4/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61132-4/fulltext) 58. 58.Gostin LO, Powers M. What Does Social Justice Require For The Public’s Health? Public Health Ethics And Policy Imperatives. Soc Justice. 2006;9. 59. 59.DeBruin D, Liaschenko J, Marshall MF. Social Justice in Pandemic Preparedness. Am J Public Health [Internet]. 2012 Apr [cited 2022 Jan 12];102(4):586–91. Available from: [http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300483](http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300483)