What First Responders Should Know About OPCs:

Download the brochure

The overdose crisis is taking its toll on emergency responders.

In the United States, drug-related problems account for 17 million visits to the emergency department. 1Studies show that 1/3rd are preventable.2

Overdose prevention centers (OPCs) (sometimes called safe consumption sites, safe injection sites or drug consumption rooms) are safe, monitored spaces where trained staff can intervene in the event of an overdose. 

In OPCs, trained staff can use naloxone (an overdose reversal medication) and oxygen to reverse an overdose and save a life, without needing to call 911. 

Research shows OPCs can reduce the burden on emergency workers and first responders by reducing the amount of calls for an overdose in an area. 

.

Download the brochure

Decreased ambulance runs. 

Less need to call EMS.

A study found that after an OPC opened in a neighborhood in Sydney, Australia, ambulance runs significantly dropped in that community. 3[This means EMS is free to respond to other calls and there is a reduced burden on EMS to respond to overdoses.

A study looking at an sanctioned OPC found that those who used an OPC had 54% fewer ED visits. 4 A study from France found similar effects – a 59% decrease in ED visits amongst those who visited the OPC. 5

In New York City, OnPoint saw over 5,000 people within two months of opening. EMS responded a total of 5 times and only 3 people were transported to the ER. 6




Download the brochure

No increased arrest numbers.

Police can focus on more pressing matters.

Research has shown that overdose prevention centers do not increase drug-related arrests. They do not increase drug related activity. 

Research analyzing arrest patterns around OnPoint NYC after opening have shown a decrease and/or no change in arrests, depending on the area studied. 78Studies from Vancouver and Sydney have shown no significant changes in crimes like assault.9

OPCs also reduce public drug use. In Vancouver, 12 weeks after opening – public drug use dropped 50% outside the site. 10 Similar findings have been found in Copenhagen and Sydney. 1112


Download the brochure

Millions saved.

Saved lives, money and time.

Cost effectiveness studies have found that OPCs would save cities millions of dollars. 13 This is money that can then be used to fund other elements of emergency response. One visit to the emergency department can cost approximately $3,450. 14Every 911 call that is avoided through an overdose response within an OPC saves money and more importantly, continues to save lives. 

Download the brochure

Developing protocols that work.

Working together with OPCs.

It is crucial that emergency services work with overdose prevention centers to ensure that operations are smooth and coordinated, so that the OPC can help reduce the burden on emergency services and serve as a triage point for people seeking services in the area. Arbitrarily strict regulations may hamper the OPC’s ability to do so – for instance, requiring a 911 response for every overdose that occurs at an OPC. 15

Working together, OPCs and first responders can help reduce the impact of the overdose crisis on communities. 

Download the brochure
  1. Ayalew, M. B., Tegegn, H. G., & Abdela, O. (2019). Drug Related Hospital Admissions; A Systematic Review of the Recent Literatures. Bulletin of Emergency and Trauma, 7(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.29252/beat-070401
  2. Ayalew, M. B., Tegegn, H. G., & Abdela, O. (2019). Drug Related Hospital Admissions; A Systematic Review of the Recent Literatures. Bulletin of Emergency and Trauma, 7(4), 339–346. https://doi.org/10.29252/beat-070401
  3. Salmon, A. M., Van Beek, I., Amin, J., Kaldor, J., & Maher, L. (2010). The impact of a supervised injecting facility on ambulance call-outs in Sydney, Australia. Addiction, 105(4), 676–683. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20148794/
  4. Lambdin, B.H., Davidson, P.J., Browne, E.N. et al. Reduced Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalisation with Use of an Unsanctioned Safe Consumption Site for Injection Drug Use in the United States. J GEN INTERN MED 37, 3853–3860 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-07312-4 
  5. P Roux, M Jauffret-Roustide, C Donadille, L Briand Madrid, C Denis, I Célérier, C Chauvin, N Hamelin, G Maradan, M P Carrieri, C Protopopescu, L Lalanne, M Auriacombe, the COSINUS Study Group , Impact of drug consumption rooms on non-fatal overdoses, abscesses and emergency department visits in people who inject drugs in France: results from the COSINUS cohort, International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 52, Issue 2, April 2023, Pages 562–576, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyac120 
  6. Harocopos, A., Gibson, B. E., Saha, N., McRae, M. T., See, K., Rivera, S., & Chokshi, D. A. (2022). First 2 Months of Operation at First Publicly Recognized Overdose Prevention Centers in US. JAMA Network Open, 5(7), e2222149. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.22149
  7. Chalfin A, del Pozo B, Mitre-Becerril D. Overdose Prevention Centers, Crime, and Disorder in New York City. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11):e2342228. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.42228
  8. Allen B, Moore B, Jent VA, Goedel WC, Israel K, Collins AB, Marshall BDL, Cerdá M. Considerations for the epidemiological evaluation of hyperlocal interventions: A case study of the New York City overdose prevention centers. Soc Sci Med. 2025 Aug;378:118156. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118156. Epub 2025 May 3. PMID: 40349434; PMCID: PMC12171985.
  9. Kennedy MC, Karamouzian M, Kerr T. Public Health and Public Order Outcomes Associated with Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities: a Systematic Review. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2017;14(5):161-183. doi:10.1007/s11904-017-0363-y
  10. Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Li K, Marsh DC, Montaner JS, Tyndall MW. Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. CMAJ. 2004 Sep 28;171(7):731-4. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1040774. PMID: 15451834; PMCID: PMC517857.
  11. Kinnard EN, Howe CJ, Kerr T, Skjødt Hass V, Marshall BD. Self-reported changes in drug use behaviors and syringe disposal methods following the opening of a supervised injecting facility in Copenhagen, Denmark. Harm Reduct J. 2014;11(1):29. Published 2014 Oct 28. doi:10.1186/1477-7517-11-29
  12. Tran V, Reid SE, Roxburgh A, Day CA. Assessing Drug Consumption Rooms and Longer Term (5 Year) Impacts on Community and Clients. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:4639-4647. Published 2021 Nov 15. doi:10.2147/RMHP.S244720
  13. Behrends CN, Paone D, Nolan ML, Tuazon E, Murphy SM, Kapadia SN, et al. Estimated impact of supervised injection facilities on overdose fatalities and healthcare costs in New York City. J Subst Abuse Treat 2019;106:79–88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31540615/
  14. Chambers LC, Hallowell BD, Zang X, Rind DM, Guzauskas GF, Hansen RN, et al. The estimated costs and benefits of a hypothetical supervised consumption site in Providence, Rhode Island. Int J Drug Policy 2022;108:103820. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35973341/p/
  15. Suen LW, Wenger LD, Morris T, Majano V, Davidson PJ, Browne EN, Ray B, Megerian CE, Lambdin BH, Kral AH. Evaluating oxygen monitoring and administration during overdose responses at a sanctioned overdose prevention site in San Francisco, California: A mixed-methods study. Int J Drug Policy. 2023 Nov;121:104165. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104165. Epub 2023 Aug 29. PMID: 37652815.