A qualitative study of repeat naloxone administrations during opioid overdose intervention by people who use opioids in New York City.

BACKGROUND Take-home naloxone (THN) kits have been designed to provide community members (including people who use drugs, their families and/or significant others) with the necessary resources to address out-of-hospital opioid overdose events. Kits typically include two doses of naloxone. This 'twin-pack' format means that lay responders need information on how to use each dose. Advice given tends to be based on dosage algorithms used by medical personnel. However, little is currently known about how and why people who use drugs, acting as lay responders, decide to administer the second dose contained within single THN kits. The aim of this article is to explore this issue. METHODS Data were generated from a qualitative semi-structured interview study that was embedded within a randomised controlled trial examining the risks and benefits of Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) training in New York City (NYC). Analysis for this article focuses upon the experiences of 22 people who use(d) opioids and who provided repeat naloxone administrations (RNA) during 24 separate overdose events. The framework method of analysis was used to compare the time participants believed had passed between each naloxone dose administered ('subjective response interval') with the 'recommended response interval' (2-4 minutes) given during OEND training. Framework analysis also charted the various reasons and rationale for providing RNA during overdose interventions. RESULTS When participants' subjective response intervals were compared with the recommended response interval for naloxone dosing, three different time periods were reported for the 24 overdose events: i. 'two doses administered in under 2 minutes' (n = 10); ii. 'two doses administered within 2-4 minutes' (n = 7), and iii. 'two doses administered more than 4 minutes apart' (n = 7). A variety of reasons were identified for providing RNA within each of the three categories of response interval. Collectively, reasons for RNA included panic, recognition of urgency, delays in retrieving naloxone kit, perceptions of recipients' responsiveness/non-responsiveness to naloxone, and avoidance of Emergency Response Teams (ERT). CONCLUSION Findings suggest that decision-making processes by people who use opioids regarding how and when to provide RNA are influenced by factors that relate to the emergency event. In addition, the majority of RNA (17/24) occurred outside of the recommended response interval taught during OEND training. These findings are discussed in terms of evidence-based intervention and 'evidence-making intervention' with suggestions for how RNA guidance may be developed and included within future/existing models of OEND training.