The hospitalist perspective on opioid prescribing: A qualitative analysis

Realities of opioid and gabapentinoid deprescribing in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: a qualitative evaluation

BACKGROUND

Opioid and gabapentinoid prescribing has increased substantially in recent years despite having limited effectiveness in treating chronic primary pain. This is concerning, with the prescribing rates and adverse effects of these medications being higher in more socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Guidance for prescribing and deprescribing these medications exists but the understanding of how deprescribing is operationalised, especially in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage, is limited.

AIM

To explore primary healthcare professionals' views and experiences of designing and implementing an intervention to reduce opioid and gabapentinoid prescribing.

DESIGN & SETTING

A qualitative evaluation, using participant observation and semi-structured interviews with primary healthcare professionals, working in practices serving areas of substantial socioeconomic disadvantage in the North East of England.

METHOD

Interviewees were purposively recruited with subsequent snowballing with participant observation of the peer-support meetings. Interview transcripts and notes from the participant observation were inductively coded and thematically analysed.

RESULT

Thirteen healthcare professionals from five practices were interviewed. Person-centred care with shared decision-making was strived for, which was time-consuming owing to the complexity of the problem and patients. Where shared decision-making was not possible, owing to patient refusal or non-engagement, risk was used to determine the appropriate action. This work involved an emotional toll on staff and patients, but was at times conversely easier and more rewarding than expected. Ultimately, demedicalising pain with a culture change is required to ensure patients are not prescribed these medications for inappropriate reasons or doses.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates key operational aspects to consider when undertaking opioid and gabapentinoid deprescribing in primary care, such as funding dedicated time to enable deprescribing.

Opioid Overdose Risk Following Hospital Discharge Among Individuals Prescribed Long-Term Opioid Therapy: a Risk Interval Analysis

BACKGROUND

Individuals prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) have increased risk of readmission and death after hospital discharge. The risk of opioid overdose during the immediate post-discharge time period is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between time since hospital discharge and opioid overdose among individuals prescribed LTOT.

DESIGN

Self-controlled risk interval analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults prescribed LTOT with at least one hospital discharge at a safety-net health system and a non-profit healthcare organization in Colorado.

MAIN MEASURES

We identified individuals prescribed LTOT who were discharged from January 2006 through June 2019. The outcome was a composite of fatal and non-fatal opioid overdoses during a 90-day post-discharge observation period, identified using electronic health record (EHR) and vital statistics data. Risk intervals included days 0-6 after index and subsequent hospital discharges. Control intervals ranged from days 7 to 89 after index discharge and included all other time during the observation period that did not fall within a risk interval or time readmitted during a subsequent hospitalization, which was excluded. Poisson regression was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overdose events during risk in comparison to control intervals.

KEY RESULTS

We identified 7695 adults (63.3% over 55 years, 59.4% female, 20.3% Hispanic) who experienced 9499 total discharges during the study period. Twenty-one overdoses occurred during their observation periods (1174 per 100,000 person-years [9 in risk, 12 in control]). Overdose risk was significantly higher during the risk interval in comparison to the control interval (IRR 6.92; 95% CI 2.92-16.43).

CONCLUSION

During the first 7 days after hospital discharge, individuals prescribed LTOT appear to be at elevated risk for opioid overdose. Clarifying mechanisms of overdose risk may help inform in-hospital and post-discharge prevention strategies.

Healthcare provider knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes regarding opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in North America prior to the emergence of COVID-19: A systematic review of qualitative research

Background

Balance between benefits and harms of using opioids for the management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. There is no one-size-fits-all approach that can be executed by prescribers and clinicians when considering this therapy.

Aim

The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for prescribing opioids for CNCP through a systematic review of qualitative literature.

Methods

Six databases were searched from inception to June 2019 for qualitative studies reporting on provider knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, or practices pertaining to prescribing opioids for CNCP in North America. Data were extracted, risk of bias was rated, and confidence in evidence was graded.

Results

Twenty-seven studies reporting data from 599 health care providers were included. Ten themes emerged that influenced clinical decision making when prescribing opioids. Providers were more comfortable to prescribe opioids when (1) patients were actively engaged in pain self-management, (2) clear institutional prescribing policies were present and prescription drug monitoring programs were used, (3) long-standing relationships and strong therapeutic alliance were present, and (4) interprofessional supports were available. Factors that reduced likelihood of prescribing opioids included (1) uncertainty toward subjectivity of pain and efficacy of opioids, (2) concern for the patient (e.g., adverse effects) and community (i.e., diversion), (3) previous negative experiences (e.g., receiving threats), (4) difficulty enacting guidelines, and (5) organizational barriers (e.g., insufficient appointment duration and lengthy documentation).

Conclusions

Understanding barriers and facilitators that influence opioid-prescribing practices offers insight into modifiable targets for interventions that can support providers in delivering care consistent with practice guidelines.

Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Initiation and Continuation: a Qualitative Study of Patients Who Received Addiction Consultation and Hospital-Based Providers

BACKGROUND

Hospitalizations related to opioid use disorder (OUD) are rising. Addiction consultation services (ACS) increasingly provide OUD treatment to hospitalized patients, but barriers to initiating and continuing medications for OUD remain. We examined facilitators and barriers to hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation from the perspective of patients and healthcare workers in the context of an ACS.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, we sought input using key informant interviews and focus groups from patients who received care from an ACS during their hospitalization and from hospitalists, pharmacists, social workers, and nurses who work in the hospital setting. A multidisciplinary team coded and analyzed transcripts using a directed content analysis.

FINDINGS

We conducted 20 key informant interviews with patients, nine of whom were interviewed following hospital discharge and 12 of whom were interviewed during a rehospitalization. We completed six focus groups and eight key informant interviews with hospitalists and hospital-based medical staff (n = 62). Emergent themes related to hospital-based OUD treatment included the following: the benefit of an ACS to facilitate OUD treatment engagement; expanded use of methadone or buprenorphine to treat opioid withdrawal; the triad of hospitalization, self-efficacy, and easily accessible, patient-centered treatment motivates change in opioid use; adequate pain control and stabilization of mental health conditions among patients with OUD contributed to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) continuation; and stable housing and social support are prerequisites for OAT uptake and continuation.

CONCLUSION

Modifiable factors which facilitate hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation include availability of in-hospital addiction expertise to offer easily accessible, patient-centered treatment and the use of methadone or buprenorphine to manage opioid withdrawal. Further research and public policy efforts are urgently needed to address reported barriers to hospital-based OUD treatment initiation and continuation which include unstable housing, poorly controlled chronic medical and mental illness, and lack of social support.

Experiences of stigma in hospitals with addiction consultation services: A qualitative analysis of patients' and hospital-based providers' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Addiction consultation services (ACS) provide evidence-based treatment to hospitalized patients with substance use disorders (SUD). Expansion of hospital-based addiction care may help to counteract the stigma that patients with SUD experience within the health care system. Stigma is among the most impactful barriers to seeking care and adhering to medical advice among people with SUD. We aimed to understand how the presence of an ACS affected patients' and hospital-based providers' experiences with stigma in the hospital setting.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study utilizing focus groups and key informant interviews with hospital-based providers (hospitalists and hospital-based nurses, social workers, pharmacists). We also conducted key informant interviews with patients who received care from an ACS during their hospitalization. An interprofessional team coded and analyzed transcripts using a thematic analysis approach to identify emergent themes.

RESULTS

Sixty-two hospital-based providers participated in six focus groups or eight interviews. Twenty patients participated in interviews. Four themes emerged relating to the experiences of stigma reported by hospital-based providers and hospitalized patients with SUD: (1) past experiences in the health care system propagate a cycle of stigmatization between hospital-based providers and patients; (2) documentation in medical charts unintentionally or intentionally perpetuates enacted stigma among hospital-based providers resulting in anticipated stigma among patients; (3) the presence of an ACS reduces enacted stigma among hospital-based providers through expanding the use of evidenced-based SUD treatment and reframing the SUD narrative; (4) ACS team members combat the effects of internalized stigma by promoting feelings of self-worth, self-efficacy, and mutual respect among patients with SUD.

CONCLUSIONS

An ACS can facilitate destigmatization of hospitalized patients with SUD by incorporating evidence-based SUD treatment into routine hospital care, by providing and modeling compassionate care, and by reframing addiction as a chronic condition to be treated alongside other medical conditions. Future reductions of stigma in hospital settings may result from promoting greater use of evidence-based treatment for SUD and expanded education for health care providers on the use of non-stigmatizing language and medical terminology when documenting SUD in the medical chart.

Association between Opioids Prescribed to Medical Inpatients with Pain and Long-Term Opioid Use

OBJECTIVES

Opioid receipt during medical hospitalizations may be associated with subsequent long-term use. Studies, however, have not accounted for pain, which may explain chronic use. The objective of this study was to identify the association between opioid exposure during a medical hospitalization and use 6 to 12 months later.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study using electronic health record data from 10 hospitals in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in 2016. Eligible patients were opioid-naïve adults with pain age 18 years and older, admitted to a medical service. Outcomes were opioid receipt during hospitalization and on discharge, and long-term opioid use, defined as ≥2 prescriptions for at least 30 pills 6 to 12 months posthospitalization. We estimated the odds of long-term opioid use by opioid exposure during the hospitalization. Models controlled for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, including patient-reported pain.

RESULTS

Among the 2971 patients in the sample, 64% received opioids during their hospitalization and 28% were discharged with opioids. Overall, 3% of patients had long-term use. Higher pain score was associated with greater odds of long-term use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per point increase 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.19). No patient factors were associated with long-term use. Receipt of an opioid during a hospitalization only was not associated with long-term use (aOR 1.44, 95% CI 0.81-2.57), but receipt at discharge was (aOR 1.96, 95% CI 1.08-3.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Although opioid receipt at discharge was associated with long-term use, the number of patients this applied to was small. Pain severity was an important predictor of long-term use and should be accounted for in future studies.

Opioid Overdose in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to determine the percentage of opioid overdose events among medical and surgical inpatient admissions, and to identify risk factors associated with these events.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and CINAHL databases from inception through July 30, 2017 and identified additional studies from reference lists and other reviews. Articles were included if they reported original research on the rate of opioid overdoses or opioid-related adverse events, and the adverse events occurred in a general medical hospital during an inpatient stay. We extracted information on study population, design, results, and risk for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. We performed this review in accordance with recently suggested standards and report our findings as per the Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met our eligibility criteria. The percentage of opioid overdoses ranged from 0.06% to 2.50% of hospitalizations. The majority of studies used only 1 method of event detection. Risk factors for overdose included older age, infancy, medical comorbidity, substance use disorder diagnosis, combining opioids with other sedatives, and admission to hospitals with higher opioid-prescribing rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid overdose in the inpatient setting is a serious preventable harm and is likely underestimated in much of the current literature. Improved detection methods are needed to more accurately measure the rate of inpatient opioid overdose. Refined estimates of opioid overdose should be used to drive safety and quality improvement initiatives in hospitals.

Receipt of opioids and patient care experiences among nonsurgical hospitalized adults

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between receipt of opioids and patient care experiences among nonsurgical hospitalized adults.

DATA SOURCES

A total of 17 691 patient-level responses to the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) patient care experience survey linked to medical records from nonsurgical hospitalizations in an 11-hospital health care system in a Midwestern state, years 2011-2016.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a pooled cross-sectional study that used propensity score matching analyses and logistic regression to estimate the relationship between patients' care experience measures (overall and pain-specific) and their receipt of opioids while hospitalized. In supplementary analyses, we used the same propensity score matching methods to estimate the relationship between patient care experience measures and receipt of opioids in four patient subgroups based on average patient-reported pain during hospitalization (no pain; mild pain; moderate pain; and severe pain).

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Receipt of opioids was not associated with patient care experience measures in our main analysis. In our supplementary analysis, we found lower ratings for pain control among hospitalizations for patients who reported moderate pain (Marginal Effects = -4.5 percent; P value = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Counter to some previous studies, we observed that receipt of opioids was not associated with patient care experience measures for nonsurgical hospitalized adults. These findings may be due to different pain experiences of adults hospitalized for nonsurgical versus surgical reasons.

Time Trends in Opioid Use Disorder Hospitalizations in Gout, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Fibromyalgia, Osteoarthritis, and Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To examine opioid use disorder (OUD)-related hospitalizations and associated healthcare utilization outcomes in people with 5 common musculoskeletal diseases (MSD).

METHODS

We used the US National Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 1998 to 2014 to examine the rates of OUD hospitalizations (per 100,000 NIS claims overall), time trends, and outcomes in 5 common rheumatic diseases: gout, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), fibromyalgia (FM), osteoarthritis (OA), and low back pain (LBP).

RESULTS

OUD hospitalization rate per 100,000 total NIS claims in 1998-2000 vs 2015-2016 (and increase) were as follows: gout, 0.05 vs 1.88 (36-fold); OA, 0.68 vs 10.22 (14-fold); FM, 0.53 vs 6.98 (12-fold); RA, 0.30 vs 3.16 (9.5-fold); and LBP, 1.17 vs 7.64 (5.5-fold). The median hospital charges and hospital stays for OUD hospitalizations were as follows: gout, $18,363 and 2.5 days; RA, $17,398 and 2.4 days; FM, $15,772 and 2.1 days; OA, $16,795 and 2.4 days; and LBP, $13,722 and 2.0 days. In-hospital mortality rates ranged from 0.9% for LBP and FM to 1.7% for gout with OUD hospitalizations. Compared to those without each MSD, age-, sex-, race-, and income-adjusted total hospital charges (inflation-adjusted) for OUD hospitalizations with each rheumatic disease were as follows: gout, $697 higher; OA, $4759 lower; FM, $2082 lower; RA, $1258 lower; and LBP, $4944 lower.

CONCLUSION

OUD hospitalizations increased in all 5 MSD studied, but the rate of increase differed. Awareness of these OUD hospitalization trends in 5 MSD among providers, policy makers, and patients is important. Development and implementation of interventions, policies, and practices to potentially reduce OUD-associated effects in people with rheumatic diseases is needed.

Association of Decreased Postsurgical Opioid Prescribing With Patients' Satisfaction With Surgeons

Importance

Opioid overdose is the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States. Several studies have shown that surgeons overprescribe opioids, and guidelines for appropriate opioid prescribing are available. Concern about patient-reported satisfaction scores may be a barrier to surgeons adopting guideline-directed prescribing.

Objective

To determine whether decreased opioid prescribing is associated with a decrease in patient-reported satisfaction with their surgeon.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective analysis of clinician satisfaction scores at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center obtained in 2 periods: 1 before (period A) and 1 after (period B) an educational intervention that resulted in decreased opioid prescribing. The analysis included 11 surgeons who performed 5 common outpatient general surgical operations on 996 patients. Data were analyzed between March and August 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patient-reported overall satisfaction rating of the surgeon (scale, 0-10). This was collected by a nonstudy-related, routine general institutional survey of approximately 40% of all outpatient encounters.

Results

Of the total number of patients, 67% were women (667 of 996), and the mean patient age was 58 years. Comparing period A with B, the proportion of patients prescribed opioids decreased from 90.2% (n = 367 of 407) to 72.8% (n = 429 of 589) (P < .001). The mean number of opioid pills per prescription decreased from 28.3 to 13.3 (P < .001) and significantly decreased for each of the 11 surgeons. One hundred five of 996 patients (10.5%) undergoing index operations responded to the survey. There was no difference in the mean clinician satisfaction ratings from period A vs B (9.70 vs 9.65; P = .69). During the study periods, 640 total surveys were collected referencing these surgeons (including outpatient encounters associated with operations other than the 5 index cases). There was no difference in the mean satisfaction ratings from period A vs period B (9.55 vs 9.59; P = .62). When individual clinicians were analyzed, none had a significant difference in overall satisfaction rating from period A vs period B.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite a marked decrease in the proportion of patients receiving opioids and in the number of pills prescribed, there was no significant change in clinician satisfaction ratings.

Clinical perspectives on hospitals' role in the opioid epidemic

BACKGROUND

Policymakers, legislators, and clinicians have raised concerns that hospital-based clinicians may be incentivized to inappropriately prescribe and administer opioids when addressing pain care needs of their patients, thus potentially contributing to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. Given the need to involve all healthcare settings, including hospitals, in joint efforts to curb the opioid epidemic, it is essential to understand if clinicians perceive hospitals as contributors to the problem. Therefore, we examined clinical perspectives on the role of hospitals in the opioid epidemic.

METHODS

We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with 23 clinicians from 6 different acute care hospitals that are part of a single healthcare system in the Midwestern United States. Our participants were hospitalists (N = 12), inpatient registered nurses (N = 9), and inpatient adult nurse practitioners (N = 2). In the interviews, we asked clinicians whether hospitals play a role in the opioid epidemic, and if so, how hospitals may contribute to the epidemic. We used a qualitative thematic analysis approach to analyze coded text for patterns and themes and examined potential differences in themes by respondent type using Dedoose software.

RESULTS

The majority of clinicians believed hospitals contribute to the opioid epidemic. Multiple clinicians cited Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) reimbursement policy and the Joint Commission's report as drivers of inappropriate opioid prescribing in hospitals. Furthermore, numerous clinicians stated that opioids are inappropriately administered in the emergency department (ED), potentially as a mechanism to facilitate discharge and prevent re-admission. Many clinicians also described how overreliance on pre-populated pain care orders for surgical (orthopedic) patients, may be contributing to inappropriate opioid use in the hospital. Finally, clinicians suggested the following initiatives for hospitals to help address the crisis: 1) educating patients about negative consequences of using opioids long-term and setting realistic pain expectations; 2) educating medical staff about appropriate opioid prescribing practices, particularly for patients with complex chronic conditions (chronic pain; opioid use disorder (OUD)); and 3) strengthening the hospital leadership efforts to decrease inappropriate opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings can inform efforts at decreasing inappropriate opioid use in hospitals.

Risk of opioid misuse in people with cancer and pain and related clinical considerations: a qualitative study of the perspectives of Australian general practitioners

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) concerning the risk of opioid misuse in people with cancer and pain and related clinical considerations.

DESIGN

A qualitative approach using semistructured telephone interviews. Analysis used an integrative approach.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Australian GPs with experience of prescribing opioids for people with cancer and pain.

RESULTS

Twenty-two GPs participated, and three themes emerged. Theme 1 (Misuse is not the main problem) contextualised misuse as a relatively minor concern compared with pain control and toxicity, and highlighted underlying systemic factors, including limitations in continuity of care and doctor expertise. Theme 2 ('A different mindset' for cancer pain) captured participants' relative comfort in prescribing opioids for pain in cancer versus non-cancer contexts, and acknowledgement that compassion and greater perceived community acceptance were driving factors, in addition to scientific support for mechanisms and clinical efficacy. Participant attitudes towards prescribing for people with cancer versus non-cancer pain differed most when cancer was in the palliative phase, when they were unconcerned by misuse. Participants were equivocal about the risk-benefit ratio of long-term opioid therapy in the chronic phase of cancer, and were reluctant to prescribe for disease-free survivors. Theme 3 ('The question is always, 'how lazy have you been?') captured participants' acknowledgement that they sometimes prescribed opioids for cancer pain as a default, easier option compared with more holistic pain management.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the role of specific clinical considerations in distinguishing risk of opioid misuse in the cancer versus non-cancer population, rather than diagnosis per se. Further efforts are needed to ensure continuity of care where opioid prescribing is shared. Greater evidence is needed to guide opioid prescribing in disease-free survivors and the chronic phase of cancer, especially in the context of new treatments for metastatic disease.

Family Physician Perceptions of Their Role in Managing the Opioid Crisis

PURPOSE

We examined the perspectives of family physicians (FPs) on opioid prescribing and management of chronic pain to better understand the barriers to safer prescribing in primary care and differences in perspectives that may be potential drivers of practice variation.

METHODS

We used an exploratory qualitative study design. Semistructured interviews were conducted in June and July 2017 with 22 FPs in Ontario and coded inductively. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes, and a framework analysis explored the influence of physician demographics on prescribing experience.

RESULTS

Three key themes emerged: the discrepancy between FPs' training and current practice, the tension between the FP's role and patient and system expectations, and the influence of length of time in practice and strength of therapeutic relationships on perspectives on opioid prescribing. There was an overarching sentiment among participants that FPs are unsupported in their efforts to manage chronic pain. More years in practice (≥15 years) seems to influence practice patterns by increasing trust in therapeutic relationships and decreasing reliance on emergent guidelines (vs clinical experience).

CONCLUSION

Number of years in practice influences FPs' response to emergent evidence, requiring initiatives to include strategies tailored to individual beliefs. Initiatives must move beyond dissemination and education to equip FPs with the skills they need to navigate emotionally charged conversations. External pressures and misaligned system and patient expectations place FPs at the center of a challenging situation, which may result in a higher risk of burnout compared with that of their specialist colleagues.

Patient Perspectives on Opioids: Views of Inpatient Veterans with Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate perspectives on opioids and opioid use from hospitalized veterans with comorbid chronic pain using qualitative methods.

DESIGN

This was an analysis of individual qualitative interviews. The semistructured interview guide was developed by a hospitalist with clinical expertise in pain treatment with guidance from a medical anthropologist. Interviews aimed to understand participants' experiences of chronic pain.

SETTING

A Midwestern Veterans Health Administration inpatient hospital unit.

SUBJECTS

Nineteen inpatient veterans with a history of chronic pain or antecedent opioid use.

METHODS

Recently admitted veterans were screened for chronic pain diagnosis on admission and antecedent opioid use. Eligible veterans were approached to participate in an in-person interview during their hospitalization.

RESULTS

The following themes were identified in relation to opioid use: other patients as the problem (by misusing opioids resulting in broad limits to opioid access), empathy for providers (perceived to be working under prescribing constraints), and opioids as a last resort.

CONCLUSIONS

Although participants were not specifically questioned about opioid medications, discussion of opioids was prevalent in discussions of chronic pain. Findings suggest the potential utility of engaging hospitalized veterans in conversations about opioids and alternative pain management strategies.

Balancing Patient-Centered and Safe Pain Care for Nonsurgical Inpatients: Clinical and Managerial Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Hospitals and clinicians aim to deliver care that is safe. Simultaneously, they are ensuring that care is patient centered, meaning that it is respectful of patients' values, preferences, and experiences. However, little is known about delivering care in cases in which these goals may not align. For example, hospitals and clinicians are facing the daunting challenge of balancing safe and patient-centered pain care for nonsurgical patients, due to lack of comprehensive care guidelines and complexity of this patient population.

METHODS

To gather clinical and managerial perspectives on the importance, feasibility, and strategies used to balance patient-centered care (PCC) and safe pain care for nonsurgical inpatients, the research team conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with hospitalists, registered nurses, and health care managers from one health care system in the Midwestern United States. We systematically examined transcribed interviews and identified major themes using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Participants acknowledged the importance of balancing PCC and safe pain care. They envisioned this balance as a continuum, with certain patients for whom it is easier (for example, an opioid-naive patient with a fracture), vs. more difficult (for example, a patient with opioid use disorder). Participants reported several strategies they use to balance PCC and safe pain care, including offering alternatives to opioids, setting realistic pain goals and expectations, and using a team approach.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians and health care managers use various strategies to balance PCC and safe pain care for nonsurgical patients. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of these strategies on patient outcomes.

Learning optimal opioid prescribing and monitoring: a simulation study of medical residents

Objective

Hospitalized patients often receive opioids. There is a lack of consensus regarding evidence-based guidelines or training programs for effective management of pain in the hospital. We investigated the viability of using an Internet-based opioid dosing simulator to teach residents appropriate use of opioids to treat and manage acute pain.

Materials and methods

We used a prospective, longitudinal design to evaluate the effects of simulator training. In face-to-face didactic sessions, we taught 120 (108 internal medicine and 12 family medicine) residents principles of pain management and how to use the simulator. Each trainee completed 10 training and, subsequently, 5 testing trials on the simulator. For each trial, we collected medications, doses, routes and times of administration, pain scores, and a summary score. We used mixed-effects regression models to assess the impact of simulation training on simulation performance scores, variability in pain score trajectories, appropriate use of short- and long-acting opioids, and use of naloxone.

Results

Trainees completed 1582 simulation trials (M = 13.2, SD = 6.8), with sustained improvements in their simulated pain management practices. Over time, trainees improved their overall simulated pain management scores (b = 0.05, P < .01), generated lower pain score trajectories with less variability (b = −0.02, P < .01), switched more rapidly from short-acting to long-acting agents (b = −0.50, P < .01), and used naloxone less often (b = −0.10, P < .01).

Discussion and conclusions

Trainees translated their understanding of didactically presented principles of pain management to their performance on simulated patient cases. Simulation-based training presents an opportunity for improving opioid-based inpatient acute pain management.

The Evaluation of Medical Inpatients Who Are Admitted on Long-term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain

Individuals who are on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic noncancer pain are frequently admitted to the hospital with acute pain, exacerbations of chronic pain, or comorbidities. Consequently, hospitalists find themselves faced with complex treatment decisions in the context of uncertainty about the effectiveness of LTOT as well as concerns about risks of overdose, opioid use disorders, and adverse events. Our multidisciplinary team sought to synthesize guideline recommendations and primary literature relevant to assessing medical inpatients on LTOT, with the objective of assisting practitioners in balancing effective pain treatment and opioid risk reduction. We identified no primary studies or guidelines specific to assessing medical inpatients on LTOT. Recommendations from outpatient guidelines on LTOT and guidelines on pain management in acute-care settings include the following: evaluate both pain and functional status, differentiate acute from chronic pain, investigate the preadmission course of opioid therapy, obtain a psychosocial history, screen for mental health conditions, screen for substance use disorders, check state prescription drug monitoring databases, order urine drug immunoassays, detect use of sedative-hypnotics, and identify medical conditions associated with increased risk of overdose and adverse events. Although approaches to assessing medical inpatients on LTOT can be extrapolated from related guidelines, observational studies, and small studies in surgical populations, more work is needed to address these critical topics for inpatients on LTOT.

A Qualitative Study of Hospitalists' Perceptions of Patient Satisfaction Metrics on Pain Management

Hospital initiatives to promote pain management may unintentionally contribute to excessive opioid prescribing. To better understand hospitalists' perceptions of satisfaction metrics on pain management, the authors conducted 25 interviews with hospitalists. Transcribed interviews were systematically analyzed to identify emergent themes. Hospitalists felt institutional pressure to earn high satisfaction scores for pain, which they perceived influenced practices toward opioid prescribing. They felt tying compensation to satisfaction scores commoditized pain. Hospitalists believed satisfaction would improve with increased time spent at the bedside. Focusing on methods to improve patient-physician communication, while maintaining efficiency in clinical practice, may promote both patient-centered pain management and satisfaction.