Introduction

In response to the opioid epidemic, California state officials sought to fund a variety of projects aimed at reducing opioid-related deaths. We describe the California Poison Control System's (CPCS) successful effort in integrating itself into the state's public health response to the opioid epidemic and describe poison control center staff attitudes and perceptions regarding the role of poison control centers at treating opioid withdrawal and addiction.

Methods

The CPCS created a leadership team and a separate 24/7 hotline, called the CPCS-Bridge line, to field calls from frontline health care providers interested in initiating medications for opioid use disorder for their patients. The implementation process also included training of all CPCS staff. In addition, the leadership team conducted an anonymous survey study to analyze attitudes and perceptions of poison center staff on the role of the poison center in the management of opioid use disorder. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the data.

Results

Calls to the new hotline increased over time, along with CPCS-initiated outreach and advertisement. A majority of questions received by the hotline were related to uncomplicated buprenorphine starts in special populations. A pre-training survey was completed by 27 (58%) of CPCS specialists, many of whom had no prior experience treating patients with opioid use disorder. Only one specialist (2%) did not believe that poison centers should play a role in opioid addiction.

Conclusions

The California Poison Control System successfully created a hotline to assist frontline health care providers in treating patients with opioid use disorder and highlight the critical role of poison centers in the public health domain. Increased federal funding to poison centers is likely to be mutually beneficial to all parties involved.

Background

Cannabis exposures reported to the California Poison Control System increased following the initiation of recreational cannabis sales on 1 January 2018 (i.e., "commercialization"). We evaluated whether local cannabis control policies adopted by 2021 were associated with shifts in harmful cannabis exposures.

Methods

Using cannabis control policies collected for all 539 California cities and counties in 2020-2021, we applied a differences-in-differences design with negative binomial regression to test the association of policies with harmful cannabis exposures reported to California Poison Control System (2011-2020), before and after commercialization. We considered three policy categories: bans on storefront recreational retail cannabis businesses, overall restrictiveness, and specific recommended provisions (restricting product types or potency, packaging and labeling restrictions, and server training requirements).

Results

Localities that ultimately banned storefront recreational retail cannabis businesses had fewer harmful cannabis exposures for children aged <13 years (rate ratio = 0.82; 95% confidence interval = 0.65, 1.02), but not for people aged >13 years (rate ratio = 0.97; 95% confidence interval = 0.85, 1.11). Of 167 localities ultimately permitting recreational cannabis sales, overall restrictiveness was not associated with harmful cannabis exposures among children aged <13 years, but for people aged >13 years, a 1-standard deviation increase in ultimate restrictiveness was associated with fewer harmful cannabis exposures (rate ratio = 0.93; 95% confidence interval = 0.86, 1.01). For recommended provisions, estimates were generally too imprecise to detect associations with harmful cannabis exposures.

Conclusion

Bans on storefront retail and other restrictive approaches to regulating recreational cannabis may be associated with fewer harmful cannabis exposures for some age groups following statewide commercialization.