• norsk
    • English
  • English 
    • norsk
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Folkehelseinstituttet
  • Publikasjoner fra SIRUS 2001 - 2015
  • Publikasjoner fra Cristin - SIRUS
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Folkehelseinstituttet
  • Publikasjoner fra SIRUS 2001 - 2015
  • Publikasjoner fra Cristin - SIRUS
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Nye lokaler – andre resultater?Videreført evaluering av sprøyteromsordningen i Oslo

Olsen, Hilgunn; Skretting, Astrid
Research report
Thumbnail
View/Open
sirusrap.7.09.pdf (469.7Kb)
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/276054
Date
2009
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • Publikasjoner fra Cristin - SIRUS [203]
  • Rapporter og andre publikasjoner fra SIRUS [141]
Original version
SIRUS-rapport. 71 p. Statens institutt for rusmiddelforskning, 2009  
Abstract
Nye lokaler

Oslo kommune åpnet sprøyterom i Tollbugata 3 i januar 2005. Etter en tids drift ble det tydelig at lokalene var lite egnet til formålet, og 1. juli 2007 flyttet sprøyterommet til en brakkerigg i Prindsenkvartalet i Storgata 36.

Ny evaluering

Den oppfølgende evalueringen er gjort på samme måte som den som ble levert i 2007 og gir en vurdering av om sprøyterommet, slik det fungerer i dag, innfrir formålene som ble satt i lov og forskrift. Oslo kommune ba også om en ”kost-nytte” vurdering av tilbudet.

Forbedringer

De ansattes situasjon er blitt langt bedre i nye lokaler, og brukerne gir også uttrykk for at de synes tilbudet har blitt bedre. Dette har ført til bedre trivsel for både ansatte og brukere. Det har vært en økning i helse- og sosialfaglig oppfølging av brukerne. Sårbehandling og samtaler er det som oftest går igjen.

Dilemmaer

Flere av dilemmaene som ble vurdert i den foregående evalueringen, er imidlertid fortsatt aktuelle. Ordningen omfatter fremdeles bare injisering av heroin, selv om røyking av stoffet er langt mindre helseskadelig. Omfanget av injisering i hals og lyske har økt, da dette medfører økt risiko for helseskade er det et dilemma hvorvidt sprøyterommet skal tillate slik injisering.

Når det gjelder de ansattes meldeplikt til barnevern og sosialtjeneste, ser det nå ut til å være avklart at denne skal overholdes slik det fremkommer i helsepersonelloven. Tidligere ble det også opplevd som et dilemma at psykisk syke brukere ikke alltid kunne bruke sprøyterommet fordi de ikke greide å innordne seg reglene. Dette problemet er langt på vei løst med nye og større lokaler som bedre ivaretar de ansattes sikkerhet, samtidig som det gir brukerne mer armslag.

”Kost-nytte”

Kost-nyttevurderingen av sprøyteromstilbudet blir i evalueringen vurdert ut fra om de oppsatte formålene med ordningen kan sies å være nådd, selv om disse ikke alltid er målbare. Det må kunne sies at tilbudet bidrar til økt verdighet for den aktuelle målgruppen, både på et individuelt og på et overordnet nivå. Sprøyterommet har også bidratt til økt mulighet for helse- og sosialfaglig oppfølging, og trolig også til bedre sprøytehygiene.
 
he new premises are satisfactory. Staff security is well attended to. Operating costs

have virtually doubled since the injecting room moved to a new home, however.

Higher outlays must be seen in light of the depreciation of the new premises.

Consistent with the findings of the former evaluation, frequency of use by

registered clients varies widely. The ‘frequently’ percentage (on average 6 or more

visits per month) rose slightly, but so did the ‘rarely’ category (0

−

2 visits per month

on average). A detailed examination of the ten clients with the highest visiting

frequency reveals, all the same, large fluctuations from month to month.

The amount of heroin the users report to inject shows more or less the same

distribution as at the former evaluation. Percentage of injections in the groin was

slightly higher compared the first two years of operations.

Again compared with that period, the move to new premises has not caused

problems in the sense of the police «chasing» injecting room clients away or

making it difficult to run the Oslo-injecting facility in any way.

As was said in connection with the last evaluation, the supervised drug injection

scheme can be said to have promoted the dignity of the group in question, both

generally and for the individual. Although it is impossible to operationalise dignity

as a concept in a measurable way, one can say that the injecting room communicates

an acknowledgement of injecting drug users’ basic human value and need of help.

For the clients, the services and contact with staff doubtless go some way to

underpinning a sense of dignity. Working conditions at the new premises are better,

increasing staff and client satisfaction, which again can be said to help clients feel

more valued than was the case in the old facility.

After the move to the new premises, somatic and psycho-social health matters were

raised in 14 per cent of all visits, while the corresponding percentage during the

first two operating years was 8 per cent. Treatment of wounds and consultations with staff are the most frequent forms of assistance. Although the rise can be put

down to an improved registration procedure, there is reason to believe that

increased focus and better staffing have played a not inconsiderable role.

There was a rise in the number of visits during which the clients receive advice

about injecting the drug, from 13 per cent in the first two years to 17 per cent in

the new injecting room. At the same time, advice was given to a smaller percentage

of clients, from 81 to 76 per cent.

Following the move, 0.68 per cent of injections have resulted in overdose incidents,

compared with 0.61 per cent during the first two years. There was, however, a fall

in the percentage of clients suffering from an overdose, from 18 per cent in the first

two years to 11 per cent after the move.

Staff sick leave fell significantly and reports attest to a good working environment.

Staff express great satisfaction with their immediate superior, but feel dogged by

the senior management at the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Service. Training of

new staff and support meetings appear to work in a satisfactory way. While staff are

generally happy with the working environment, they would like more space, longer

opening hours and more staff.

Harm reduction programmes such as the injecting room will raise numerous

dilemmas/problems for staff and decision makers. Having said that, opinions on

what exactly constitutes a dilemma and how seriously it should be taken will vary.

Some dilemmas/problems are largely similar to the challenges, choices and

constraints in other services for drug users. Others are issues addressed under

general drug and alcohol policy, but seen here through the lens of a public injecting

room facility. Most of the dilemmas and choices discussed in the last evaluation

report still apply; some, however, appear to have been eliminated.
 
Description
-

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit
 

 

Browse

ArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournalsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournals

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit