Drug consumption rooms (DCRs), also known as supervised consumption sites, safe injection sites, and overdose prevention centres, are facilities where individuals can consume illicit drugs under the supervision of healthcare professionals, or people with lived experience of substance use. Typically, these facilities offer a clean environment in which to consume drugs, access to sterile drug use supplies (e.g., syringes), immediate emergency response in the event of an overdose, some primary care, and referrals to internal and external services. In recent years, there has been a rapid increase in DCR implementation, including in settings in North America, Latin America and Africa.

DCRs vary immensely in design and operation. These include stand-alone DCRs, integrated DCRs, hospital-based DCRs, housing-based DCRs, mobile DCRs, and temporary emergency DCRs. Regardless of these differences, the objectives are similar across these DCR models. DCRs typically seek to reduce overdose morbidity and mortality, reduce infectious disease acquisition, increase access to a range of services and supports, and reduce public disorder associated with the consumption of drugs in public spaces.

DCRs have been subjected to rigorous evaluation in a range of settings. Despite differences in DCR models and settings, this body of observational, quasi-experimental, and mathematical modelling research has been remarkably consistent in detecting health and social benefits of DCR access. It has also been consistent in ruling out unintended negative consequences of DCR implementation (e.g., increases in crime). These findings have been summarised in three peer-reviewed systematic reviews. Specifically, evaluations undertaken in various settings internationally have generated a large, consistent body of evidence indicating that DCRs:

• Reduce overdose-related morbidity and mortality;
• Support adoption of safer drug use practices and reduce risk of infectious disease transmission;
• Facilitate uptake of addiction treatment and other services;
• Reduce public disorder concerns associated with drug use;
• Do not increase crime;
• Are cost –effective.

However, given that randomised controlled trials of DCRs have been deemed both impractical and unethical and therefore have not been undertaken, some decision makers have been reluctant to endorse DCRs. That said, the evidence concerning DCRs is consistent across a range of settings and service designs, and when considered within grading systems that accommodate evidence derived from non-experimental studies (e.g., Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) DCRs can be regarded as evidence-based interventions capable of producing a range of benefits.