They don't know what they don't know: internal medicine residents' knowledge and confidence in urine drug test interpretation for patients with chronic pain

Laboratorian Interpretation of Drug Testing Results in Pain Management: Lessons From College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing

CONTEXT.—

Accurate interpretation of drug test results is key to appropriate patient care in numerous settings, including pain management. Despite recommendations that providers should consult laboratory professionals for guidance when necessary, literature demonstrating laboratorian expertise in drug test interpretation is lacking.

OBJECTIVE.—

To evaluate participating laboratories' performance on the case-based, interpretive ("dry") challenge included with each Drug Monitoring for Pain Management proficiency testing program from 2012-2023.

DESIGN.—

All challenges (n = 23) required participants to identify if drug test results were consistent or inconsistent with prescribed medications in the case history. Relevant medications, presumptive and confirmatory drug test results, and participant responses were extracted from program summary reports and examined for performance and common themes.

RESULTS.—

Overall, 91.8% (6821 of 7431) of participant responses correctly identified whether drug testing was consistent with medications. There were 8 challenges with participant scores less than 91.8% (range, 59.8% [49 of 82 responses] to 88.9% [193 of 217 responses]). Common knowledge gaps identified in these challenges included false-positive presumptive (screening) results, minor metabolism of opiates, and recognizing that presence of a nonprescribed drug is inconsistent with prescribed medications. Although some participants repeatedly responded incorrectly, there were no associations between laboratory type, personnel responding, or analytical performance and incorrect responses to interpretative challenges.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Program participants performed well overall, but several concerning educational gaps were identified. Laboratorians have a role in providing interpretative guidance for drug testing and should emphasize ongoing education to ensure competence in the setting of constantly changing prescribed and nonprescribed drug use.

Framing Chronic Pain in U.S. News Coverage of the Opioid Epidemic (2012-2022)

Chronic pain, pain persisting longer than six months, afflicts 20% of the U.S. population and is the leading cause of disability. To manage pain, many chronic pain patients (CPPs) and healthcare providers turn to opioids, prescription medications that block pain signals and offer relief. However, in light of the U.S.' ongoing opioid epidemic, CPPs without a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) are facing increased stigma when seeking opioid medication. Further, many have been forced to taper their therapeutic dose due to updated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prescribing guidelines in 2016 and 2022, with a range of (adverse) outcomes. Though research has explored experiences of chronic pain and OUD independently, few studies have explored how media coverage of the opioid epidemic has shaped representations, and resulting stereotypes, of CPPs. Guided by framing theory, this content analysis examines sources' characterization of CPPs amidst a decade of U.S. news coverage of the opioid epidemic (N = 492). Findings identify four dominant news frames, including two novel frames termed culpability and strategy, and elements (i.e., characters, significant events) that comprise these frames. When discussed, CPPs were ascribed the identity of a drug-seeking addict 82% of the time. Collectively, this study provides insight as to how news media coverage of the opioid epidemic influence(d) public perceptions of chronic pain (patients). Findings offer theoretical and practical implications for media outlets, policymakers, CPPs and healthcare providers, as well as highlighting how use of opioids for pain management does not equate to abuse of opioids.

Drug Testing Interpretation in the Peripartum Setting: Results of Clinician Survey

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to (1) survey obstetrical and pediatric clinicians' experience, confidence, and training in maternal and neonatal drug testing interpretation; (2) determine their proficiency in drug test interpretation; and (3) assess predictors of correct interpretation.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of clinicians caring for pregnant people or newborns at an urban academic center. We assessed clinicians' demographic characteristics, experience, confidence, and prior training in interpretation of maternal and newborn drug tests. We assessed proficiency in interpreting drug tests using 11 clinical vignettes and categorized scores as poor (0-2), fair (3-5), and good (≥6) performance to facilitate data interpretation. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine associations of clinician characteristics and score category (reference category: poor performance).

RESULTS

In total, 103 respondents completed the survey including 60 obstetrical clinicians (58.3%), 19 family medicine physicians (18.5%), 21 pediatric clinicians (20.4%), and 3 social workers (2.9%) (response rate, ~40%). The mean correct response was 4.1 (SD, 2.17; range, 0-11). Most respondent scores were fair (n = 47.6%), followed by good (n = 28.2%) and poor (n = 24.3%). Increased frequency, confidence, and training in interpreting maternal screening and confirmatory tests were associated with higher proficiency. Increased confidence and training in interpreting neonatal screening and confirmatory tests, but not frequency, were associated with higher proficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

Most clinicians demonstrated fair proficiency in interpreting drug tests. Predictors of proficiency were confidence and prior training for drug test interpretation, suggesting that educational interventions could improve proficiency.

Assessing knowledge gaps and educational needs in urine drug test interpretation among health care professionals

OBJECTIVES

Urine drug testing (UDT) is a critical tool used in medical, forensic, and occupational settings, but interpreting results can be challenging. We performed a study to assess the ability of health care professionals to interpret UDT results accurately.

METHODS

In total, 911 clinical and laboratory professionals in the United States and Canada responded to a survey with questions gauging expertise in UDT interpretation. Responses were analyzed to identify knowledge gaps.

RESULTS

Toxicologists and laboratory PhD scientists performed well, with means of 4.82 and 4.63 questions answered correctly (out of 6 possible), respectively. Physicians specializing in pathology, emergency medicine, primary care, and internal medicine, however, displayed concerning knowledge gaps, as did laboratorians with nondoctoral degrees. Experience and training correlated with interpretation accuracy. Identification of simulated compliance as well as understanding opioid exposure, metabolism, and immunoassay cross-reactivity were among the most clinically significant knowledge gaps. More than 30% of survey respondents indicated that they would seek UDT information from the internet or peers rather than clinical or laboratory experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlighted the need for targeted education and better collaboration between clinical and laboratory experts and other health care professionals to ensure that when physicians order UDT, they can accurately interpret results and reduce harm.

Residents' Knowledge regarding Recreational Drug Screening Immunoassays at a Swiss Hospital Group

Introduction

In case of suspected acute recreational drug toxicity, immunoassays are commonly used as diagnostic tools. Although easy to handle, understanding of their limitations is necessary for a correct interpretation of the results. The aim of this project was to investigate residents' knowledge regarding drug screening immunoassays at a Swiss hospital group.

Methods

All residents of a large hospital group in Switzerland were invited by e-mail to participate in an anonymous survey. Following ten multiple choice questions on drug screening tests, the participants were also asked about their demographics, whether they used drug screening tests on a regular basis, and how confident they felt in their ability to interpret test results.

Results

The ten knowledge questions were answered by 110 of the 1026 residents (11%). Among the 108 participants with available demographics, 90% were 25-35 years old, 63% were female, and 70% were at least in their 4th year of residency. The median score of correct answers was 4 out of 10 (range 0-7) and in 50% of the questions, the correct answer was the most frequently selected response. No significant differences in the knowledge scores were found based on the training, confidence level, or the frequency of drug tests used in daily work.

Conclusion

This survey revealed widespread knowledge gaps among residents regarding the interpretation of immunoassay-based drug test results. These findings can be used to implement educational measures on this topic and might provide a basis for targeted information on common pitfalls to be included in laboratory reports.

Claims data analysis of provider-to-provider tele-mentoring program impact on opioid prescribing in Missouri

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess opioid prescribing patterns of primary care providers (PCPs) participating in a virtual tele-mentoring program for patients with chronic pain as compared to nonparticipants.

DESIGN

We utilized Missouri Medicaid claims from 2013 to 2021 to compare opioid prescription dosages and daily supply of opioids prescribed by PCPs. Participants and nonparticipants were matched using propensity score matching.

SETTING

Missouri Medicaid data were received through partnership with the Center for Health Policy's MO HealthNet Data Project, the state's leading provider of Medicaid data.

PARTICIPANTS

Missouri-based prescribers.

INTERVENTION

Show-Me Project Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO), an evidence-based provider-to-provider telehealth intervention that connects PCPs with a team of specialists.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We compared the rate of prescription opioid >50 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), mean MMEs/day, and mean number of daily supply to understand the impact of the ECHO model on providers' opioid prescribing.

RESULTS

Patients treated by ECHO providers have 33 percent lower odds of being prescribed opioid dose >50 MME/day (p < 0.001) compared to non-ECHO providers. There is also a 14 percent reduction in the average opioid dose prescribed to patients of ECHO providers (p < 0.001). We observed a 3 percent (p < 0.001) reduction in average daily supply of opioids among patients of ECHO providers compared to the comparison group.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain Management ECHO supports PCPs with needed education and skills to provide specialty care in the management of pain conditions and safe prescribing of opioid medications.

CDC Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain - United States, 2022

This guideline provides recommendations for clinicians providing pain care, including those prescribing opioids, for outpatients aged ≥18 years. It updates the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016 (MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65[No. RR-1]:1-49) and includes recommendations for managing acute (duration of <1 month), subacute (duration of 1-3 months), and chronic (duration of >3 months) pain. The recommendations do not apply to pain related to sickle cell disease or cancer or to patients receiving palliative or end-of-life care. The guideline addresses the following four areas: 1) determining whether or not to initiate opioids for pain, 2) selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages, 3) deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up, and 4) assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of the scientific evidence and reflect considerations of benefits and harms, patient and clinician values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (a federally chartered advisory committee), the public, and peer reviewers. CDC recommends that persons with pain receive appropriate pain treatment, with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of all treatment options in the context of the patient's circumstances. Recommendations should not be applied as inflexible standards of care across patient populations. This clinical practice guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the benefits and risks of pain treatments, including opioid therapy; improve the effectiveness and safety of pain treatment; mitigate pain; improve function and quality of life for patients with pain; and reduce risks associated with opioid pain therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death.

Do Urine Drug Tests Reveal Substance Misuse Among Patients Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain?

BACKGROUND

Urine drug testing (UDT) is a recommended risk mitigation strategy for patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain, but evidence that UDT supports identification of substance misuse is limited.

OBJECTIVE

Identify the prevalence of UDT results that may identify substance misuse, including diversion, among patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Patients (n=638) receiving opioids for chronic pain who had one or more UDTs, examining up to eight substances per sample, during a one 1-year period.

MAIN MEASURES

Experts adjudicated the clinical concern that UDT results suggest substance misuse or diversion as not concerning, uncertain, or concerning.

KEY RESULTS

Of 638 patients, 48% were female and 49% were over age 55 years. Patients had a median of three UDTs during the intervention year. We identified 37% of patients (235/638) with ≥1 concerning UDT and a further 35% (222/638) having ≥1 uncertain UDT. We found concerning UDTs due to non-detection of a prescribed substance in 24% (156/638) of patients and detection of a non-prescribed substance in 23% (147/638). Compared to patients over 65 years, those aged 18-34 years were more likely to have concerning UDT results with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 4.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-12.5). Patients with mental health diagnoses (AOR 1.6 [95% CI 1.1-2.3]) and substance use diagnoses (AOR 2.3 [95% CI 1.5-3.7]) were more likely to have a concerning UDT result.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert adjudication of UDT results identified clinical concern for substance misuse in 37% of patients receiving opioids for chronic pain. Further research is needed to determine if UDTs impact clinical practice or patient-related outcomes.

The North American opioid epidemic: opportunities and challenges for clinical laboratories

Since 1999, the opioid epidemic in North America has resulted in over 1 million deaths, and it continues to escalate despite numerous efforts in various arenas to combat the upward trend. Clinical laboratories provide drug testing to support practices such as emergency medicine, substance use disorder treatment, and pain management; increasingly, these laboratories are collaborating in novel partnerships including drug-checking services (DCS) and multidisciplinary treatment teams. This review examines drug testing related to management of licit and illicit opioid use, new technologies and test strategies employed by clinical laboratories, barriers hindering laboratory response to the opioid epidemic, and areas for improvement and standardization within drug testing. Literature search terms included combinations of "opioid," "opiate," "fentanyl," "laboratory," "epidemic," "crisis," "mass spectrometry," "immunoassay," "drug screen," "drug test," "guidelines," plus review of PubMed "similar articles" and references within publications. While immunoassay (IA) and point-of-care (POC) test options for synthetic opioids are increasingly available, mass spectrometry (MS) platforms offer the greatest flexibility and sensitivity for detecting novel, potent opioids. Previously reserved as a second-tier application in most drug test algorithms, MS assays are gaining a larger role in initial screening for specific patients and DCS. However, there are substantial differences among laboratories in terms of updating test menus, algorithms, and technologies to meet changing clinical needs. While some clinical laboratories lack the resources and expertise to implement MS, many are also slow to adopt available IA and POC tests for newer opioids such as fentanyl. MS-based testing also presents challenges, including gaps in available guidance for assay validation and ongoing performance assessment that contribute to a dramatic lack of standardization among laboratories. We identify opportunities for improvement in laboratory operations, reporting, and interpretation of drug test results, including laboratorian and provider education and laboratory-focused guidelines. We also highlight the need for collaboration with providers, assay and instrument manufacturers, and national organizations to increase the effectiveness of clinical laboratory and provider efforts in preventing morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use and misuse.

Assessing pharmacy students' knowledge and perceptions of urine drug testing following a pharmacy skills laboratory

INTRODUCTION

Urine drug tests (UDTs) are commonly used in the healthcare setting to monitor adherence, abuse, and diversion of controlled substances. The goal of our study was to assess the knowledge and perceptions of third-year pharmacy students on UDTs following an educational experience.

METHODS

Third-year pharmacy students completed pre- and post-questionnaires following a skills laboratory focused on the use of UDTs in clinical settings. The 34-item questionnaires consisted of three domains: demographics, knowledge regarding UDTs, and personal perceptions of UDTs. A pre-lab teaching podcast was assigned prior to the laboratory session, and two clinical cases were discussed during the live UDT segment. Descriptive statistics were used to assess demographics, and changes in knowledge and perceptions of UDTs were evaluated using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U, respectively, with an a priori alpha of 0.05.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty students were included in the analysis. Students in the laboratory were predominately female (n = 72, 60%), Caucasian (n = 84, 70%), and had no prior training with UDTs (n = 104, 86.7%). Student knowledge of UDT interpretation significantly increased from 57% to 71% (four and five correct answers out of seven, respectively). Confidence interpreting UDTs and answering questions related to UDTs also increased significantly. Students felt the laboratory experience was valuable, with 84.2% agreeing or strongly agreeing.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational programming focused on UDTs improves student confidence interpreting results and knowledge related to the use of UDTs.

Physician Perspective and Challenges Ordering/Interpreting Laboratory Tests Related to the Opioid Crisis in America

ABSTRACT

The opioid crisis is a profound public health crisis in the United States. It has significantly increased morbidity and mortality in our nation. There are many contributing factors to the opioid crisis, including a strong national and international interest to treat pain as effectively as possible. To combat this crisis, numerous strategies have been implemented over the past few years at the legislative, health system, and patient levels. As a result of these efforts, for the first time since 1999, drug overdose deaths in the United States decreased from 2017 to 2018, when deaths involving all opioids, prescription opioids, and heroin decreased by 2%, 13.5%, and 4.1%, respectively. To continue to curb the opioid crisis, it is imperative to optimize pain control through multidisciplinary and multimodal approaches and to adhere to opioid prescribing guidelines from regulatory and professional organizations to minimize risks for opioid misuse and abuse. Urine drug testing is an important means to assist with opioid monitoring and safe opioid prescribing. There are challenges when ordering urine drug tests, collecting specimens, and interpreting test results. Inaccurate interpretations of laboratory results can have significantly negative impacts on patients care and life. There is a critical need for prescriber education by laboratory experts in the use of drug testing and interpretation of results. To interpret test results correctly and make safe prescribing decisions, it is very important for prescribers/providers to consult clinical toxicologists, laboratory directors, and reporting staff. This interaction is vital and provides excellence of care for patients. This review aims to provide information concerning the opioid crisis in the United States and summarizes the challenges ordering and interpreting opioid-related laboratory testing as well as pertinent guidelines and recommendations.

Health Care Provider Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceived Confidence in Managing Patients With Cancer Pain and Nonmedical Opioid Use

CONTEXT

Health care provider education is an effective strategy to improve knowledge and competencies in opioid-prescribing practices. However, there are very few studies regarding this among providers of patients with cancer pain and nonmedical opioid use (NMOU). The aim of our study was to assess participants' attitudes, beliefs, and self-perceived confidence in caring for patients with cancer pain and NMOU before and after attending an opioid educational seminar on the use and nonmedical use of opioids in patients with cancer.

METHODS

An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among health care providers who attended an opioid educational event in April 2018 and May 2019.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 63% (129 of 206). Approximately 72% of participants had concerns about NMOU in patients with cancer, 69% felt that such patients are frequently underdetected, and 63% felt that cancer pain is frequently undertreated. At baseline, only 23% reported adequate knowledge and 35% reported confidence in caring for patients with cancer with NMOU-related issues. Among those who completed both the preseminar and postseminar surveys, these numbers improved significantly at the end of the seminar (26% vs. 71% and 43% vs. 84%, respectively; all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Most health care providers expressed concerns about underdetection of NMOU and undertreatment of pain among patients with cancer. Many self-reported knowledge and confidence deficits in caring for patients with cancer with NMOU. Seminar participation was associated with an increase in the number of participants with self-perceived knowledge and confidence. Future studies are needed to ascertain the impact of such opioid educational events on patient care practices.

Reducing the Pain Behind Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care

OBJECTIVE

To describe the efficacy of a comprehensive approach aimed at reducing opioid prescribing in an internal medicine resident clinic.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

Internal medicine primary care resident clinic at a large urban academic medical center.

SUBJECTS

All patients receiving opioid prescriptions from the primary care clinic.

METHODS

We reviewed pharmacy dispensing data for two hospital-affiliated pharmacies for resident primary care patients filling opioid prescriptions between July 2016 and July 2018. We instituted a comprehensive set of interventions that included resident education, limiting supervision of encounters for long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) to a fixed set of faculty champions, and providing alternate modalities for pain control. We calculated the change in number of opioid prescriptions dispensed, number of patients receiving opioid prescriptions, morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) dispensed, and average per-patient daily MMEs dispensed.

RESULTS

We observed an average monthly reduction of 2.44% (P < 0.001) in the number of prescriptions dispensed and a 1.83% (P < 0.001) monthly reduction in the number of patients receiving prescriptions. Over the two-year period, there was a 74.3% reduction in total MMEs prescribed and a 66.5% reduction in the average MMEs prescribed per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate a significant reduction in opioid prescribing after implementation of a comprehensive initiative. Although our study was observational in nature, we witnessed a nearly threefold decrease in opioid prescribing compared with national trends. Our results offer important insights for other primary care resident clinics hoping to engender safe prescribing practices and curb high-dose opioid prescribing.

Urine Drug Testing in Cancer Pain Management

Urine drug test (UDT) is an effective tool used in chronic opioid therapy to ensure patient adherence to treatment and detect nonmedical opioid use. The two main types of UDT used in routine clinical practice are the screening tests or immunoassays and the confirmatory tests or laboratory-based specific drug identification tests such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, or tandem mass spectrometry. UDT produces objective data on some nonmedical opioid use that may otherwise go undetected, such as the use of undisclosed medications, the nonuse of prescribed medications, and the use of illegal drugs. It allows clinicians to initiate an open and effective conversation about nonmedical opioid use with their patients. However, the test has certain limitations that sometimes compromise its use. Its interpretation can be challenging to clinicians because of the complexity of the opioid metabolic pathways. Clear guidelines or recommendations regarding the use of UDT in cancer pain is limited. As a result, UDT appears to be underused among patients with cancer pain receiving opioid therapy. More studies are needed to help standardize the integration and use of UDT in routine cancer pain management. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite its potential benefits, urine drug testing (UDT) appears to be underused among patients with cancer pain receiving opioid therapy. This is partly because its interpretation can be challenging owing to the complexity of the opioid metabolic pathways. Information regarding the use of UDT in opioid therapy among patients with cancer is limited. This review article will improve clinician proficiency in UDT interpretation and assist oncologists in developing appropriate treatment plans during chronic opioid therapy.

Provider Misinterpretation, Documentation, and Follow-Up of Definitive Urine Drug Testing Results

BACKGROUND

Urine drug testing (UDT) is an essential tool to monitor opioid misuse among patients on chronic opioid therapy. Inaccurate interpretation of UDT can have deleterious consequences. Providers' ability to accurately interpret and document UDT, particularly definitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) results, has not been widely studied.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether providers correctly interpret, document, and communicate LC-MS/MS UDT results.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective chart review of 160 UDT results (80 aberrant; 80 non-aberrant) between August 2017 and February 2018 from 5 ambulatory clinics (3 primary care, 1 oncology, 1 pain management). Aberrant results were classified into one or more of the following categories: illicit drug use, simulated compliance, not taking prescribed medication, and taking a medication not prescribed. Accurate result interpretation was defined as concordance between the provider's documented interpretation and an expert laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Outcome measures were concordance between provider and laboratory interpretation of UDT results, documentation of UDT results, results acknowledgement in the electronic health record, communication of results to the patient, and rate of prescription refills.

KEY RESULTS

Aberrant results were most frequently due to illicit drug use. Overall, only 88 of the 160 (55%) had any documented provider interpretations of which 25/88 (28%) were discordant with the laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Thirty-six of the 160 (23%) documented communication of the results to the patient. Communicating results was more likely to be documented if the results were aberrant compared with non-aberrant (33/80 [41%] vs. 3/80 [4%], p < 0.001). In all cases where provider interpretations were discordant with the laboratory interpretation, prescriptions were refilled.

CONCLUSIONS

Erroneous provider interpretation of UDT results, infrequent documentation of interpretation, lack of communication of results to patients, and prescription refills despite inaccurate interpretations are common. Expert assistance with urine toxicology interpretations may be needed to improve provider accuracy when interpreting toxicology results.

The effect of replacing 1 week of content teaching with an intensive simulation-based learning activity on physiotherapy student clinical placement performance

BACKGROUND

Simulation-based learning (SBL) activities are increasingly used to replace or supplement clinical placements for physiotherapy students. There is limited literature evaluating SBL activities that replace on-campus teaching, and to our knowledge, no studies evaluate the role of SBL in counteracting the negative impact of delay between content teaching and clinical placements. The aims of this study were to (i) determine the effect on clinical placement performance of replacing 1 week of content teaching with a SBL activity and (ii) determine if a delay between content teaching and clinical placement impacted clinical placement performance.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective cohort study. Participants included students in the first two clinical placements of a graduate-entry, masters-level program. Six hundred twenty-nine student placements were analysed-285 clinical placements where students undertook a 20-h SBL activity immediately prior to clinical placement were compared with 344 placements where students received traditional content. Of the placements where students received the SBL, 147 occurred immediately following content teaching and 138 had a delay of at least 5 weeks. Performance on clinical placement was assessed using the Assessment of Physiotherapy Practice (APP).

RESULTS

There was a significant main effect of SBL with higher APP marks for the experimental group (3.12/4, SD = 0.25 vs 3.01/4, SD = 0.22), and post hoc analysis indicated marks were significantly higher for all seven areas of assessment. Students whose placements immediately followed content teaching performed better on mid-placement APP marks in two areas of assessment (analysis and planning, and intervention) compared to students for whom there was a delay. There were no statistically significant differences in relation to delay for end of placement APP marks.

CONCLUSION

Replacing 1 week of classroom teaching with a targeted, SBL activity immediately before placement significantly improved student performance on that clinical placement. A negative impact of delay was found on mid-placement, but not the end of placement APPs. Findings of improved performance when replacing a week of content teaching with a targeted SBL activity, and poorer performance on mid-placement marks with a delay between content teaching and clinical placement, may have implications for curriculum design.

Guidelines for Monitoring Patients Using Opioid Therapy

Opioid-related morbidity and mortality have increased to epidemic proportions over the past 20 years. Gynecologists play an integral role in addressing this epidemic through management of patients with pain, specifically through prescribing and monitoring practices. Practical recommendations are provided for clinicians caring for noncancer patients on chronic opioid therapy. Recommendations are largely based on national consensus guidelines with a focus on frequency and content of follow-up, identification of high risk behaviors, and reassessment of goals of treatment.

Utilizing a Faculty Development Program to Promote Safer Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Pain in Internal Medicine Resident Practices

OBJECTIVE

To implement a skills-based faculty development program (FDP) to improve Internal Medicine faculty's clinical skills and resident teaching about safe opioid prescribing.

DESIGN

An FDP for Internal Medicine attendings that included a one-hour didactic presentation followed immediately by an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) that focused on assessing and managing opioid misuse risk, opioid treatment outcomes (benefits and harms), and aberrant opioid use behaviors. The evaluation compared pre- and three-months-post-FDP changes in faculty's safe opioid prescribing knowledge, attitudes, confidence (clinical and teaching), and self-reported resident teaching.

RESULTS

The 25 Internal Medicine faculty participants had a mean of 13 years in clinical practice, including 10 years precepting residents. During the three months post-FDP, faculty treated a mean of 22 patients with chronic pain on long-term opioids and precepted a mean of seven residents caring for patients on long-term opioids. At three months post-FDP, there were significant improvements in correct responses to knowledge questions (68% to 79% P = 0.008), "high-level" confidence in safer opioid prescribing clinical practice (43.5% to 82.6% P = 0.007) and resident teaching (45.8% to 83.3%, P = 0.007), and improvements in alignment of desired attitudes toward safer opioid prescribing. There were nonsignificant increases in self-reported safe opioid prescribing resident teaching.

CONCLUSIONS

A skills-based faculty development program that includes a lecture followed by an OSCE can improve Internal Medicine faculty safe opioid prescribing knowledge, attitudes, and clinical and teaching confidence. Improving resident teaching may require additional training in safe opioid prescribing teaching skills.

Scope and Nature of Pain- and Analgesia-Related Content of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)

Background

"The ongoing opioid crisis lies at the intersection of two substantial public health challenges-reducing the burden of suffering from pain and containing the rising toll of the harms that can result from the use of opioid medications" [1]. Improved pain education for health care providers is an essential component of the multidimensional response to both still-unmet challenges [2,3]. Despite the importance of licensing examinations in assuring competency in health care providers, there has been no prior appraisal of pain and related content within the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE).

Methods

An expert panel developed a novel methodology for characterizing USMLE questions based on pain core competencies and topical and public health relevance.

Results

Under secure conditions, raters used this methodology to score 1,506 questions, with 28.7% (432) identified as including the word "pain." Of these, 232 questions (15.4% of the 1,506 USMLE questions reviewed) were assessed as being fully or partially related to pain, rather than just mentioning pain but not testing knowledge of its mechanisms and their implications for treatment. The large majority of questions related to pain (88%) focused on assessment rather than safe and effective pain management, or the context of pain.

Conclusions

This emphasis on assessment misses other important aspects of safe and effective pain management, including those specific to opioid safety. Our findings inform ways to improve the long-term education of our medical and other graduates, thereby improving the health care of the populations they serve.

Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations

Objective

To develop consensus recommendations on urine drug monitoring (UDM) in patients with chronic pain who are prescribed opioids.

Methods

An interdisciplinary group of clinicians with expertise in pain, substance use disorders, and primary care conducted virtual meetings to review relevant literature and existing guidelines and share their clinical experience in UDM before reaching consensus recommendations.

Results

Definitive (e.g., chromatography-based) testing is recommended as most clinically appropriate for UDM because of its accuracy; however, institutional or payer policies may require initial use of presumptive testing (i.e., immunoassay). The rational choice of substances to analyze for UDM involves considerations that are specific to each patient and related to illicit drug availability. Appropriate opioid risk stratification is based on patient history (especially psychiatric conditions or history of opioid or substance use disorder), prescription drug monitoring program data, results from validated risk assessment tools, and previous UDM. Urine drug monitoring is suggested to be performed at baseline for most patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain and at least annually for those at low risk, two or more times per year for those at moderate risk, and three or more times per year for those at high risk. Additional UDM should be performed as needed on the basis of clinical judgment.

Conclusions

Although evidence on the efficacy of UDM in preventing opioid use disorder, overdose, and diversion is limited, UDM is recommended by the panel as part of ongoing comprehensive risk monitoring in patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain.

The Next Stage of Buprenorphine Care for Opioid Use Disorder

Buprenorphine has been used internationally for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) since the 1990s and has been available in the United States for more than a decade. Initial practice recommendations were intentionally conservative, were based on expert opinion, and were influenced by methadone regulations. Since 2003, the American crisis of OUD has dramatically worsened, and much related empirical research has been undertaken. The findings in several important areas conflict with initial clinical practice that is still prevalent. This article reviews research findings in the following 7 areas: location of buprenorphine induction, combining buprenorphine with a benzodiazepine, relapse during buprenorphine treatment, requirements for counseling, uses of drug testing, use of other substances during buprenorphine treatment, and duration of buprenorphine treatment. For each area, evidence for needed updates and modifications in practice is provided. These modifications will facilitate more successful, evidence-based treatment and care for patients with OUD.

Racial disparities in discontinuation of long-term opioid therapy following illicit drug use among black and white patients

BACKGROUND

Among patients prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain, no study has yet examined how clinicians respond to evidence of illicit drug use and whether the decision to discontinue opioids is influenced by a patient's race.

METHODS

Among outpatients of black and white race initiating LTOT through the VA between 2000 and 2010, we reviewed electronic medical records to determine whether opioids were discontinued within 60 days of a positive urine drug test. Logistic regression was used to examine differences by race.

RESULTS

Among 15,366 patients of black (48.1%) or white (51.9%) race initiating LTOT from 2000 to 2010, 20.5% (25.5% of blacks vs. 15.8% of whites, P <. 001) received a urine drug test within the first 6 months of treatment; 13.8% tested positive for cannabis and 17.4% for cocaine. LTOT was discontinued in 11.4% of patients who tested positive for cannabis and in 13.1% of those who tested positive for cocaine. Among patients testing positive for cannabis, blacks were 2.1 times more likely than whites to have LTOT discontinued (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-4.08). Among patients testing positive for cocaine, blacks were 3.3 times more likely than whites to have LTOT discontinued (AOR 3.30, CI 1.28-8.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients testing positive for illicit drug use while receiving LTOT, clinicians are substantially more likely to discontinue opioids when the patient is black. A more universal approach to administering and responding to urine drug testing is urgently needed.

Psychiatry residents' and fellows' confidence and knowledge in interpreting urine drug testing results related to opioids

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have suggested that physicians and residents may not have sufficient knowledge to appropriately interpret urine drug tests (UDTs) in patients who are prescribed opioids or using illicit substances. Therefore, the aim of this study was to survey psychiatry residents and fellows about their confidence and knowledge in interpreting UDTs in patients with chronic pain or receiving office-based opioid treatment.

METHODS

All psychiatry residency and fellowship program directors in the New England states were approached to recruit their trainees to participate in an anonymous online survey including a 7-item knowledge test.

RESULTS

A total of 93 residents and fellows completed the survey. Only a minority (24.7%) reported any prior training in UDT interpretation. A majority (62.6%) felt confident about interpreting UDTs. The mean total score for the knowledge test was 3.5 (SD =1.1, range: 1-6). There were no significant differences in total score by confidence in UDT interpretation (3.7 vs. 3.4, t = -1.17, nonsignificant [NS]), nor by prior training in UDT interpretation (3.8 vs. 3.5, t = -1.22, NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Psychiatry residents and fellows infrequently receive training in UDT interpretation, score poorly on the knowledge test, and their confidence in UDT interpretation does not reflect their knowledge. Future research should evaluate educational interventions that improve UDT interpretation among psychiatry residents and fellows.

Provider reasons for discontinuing long-term opioid therapy following aberrant urine drug tests differ based on the type of substance identified

OBJECTIVE

Urine drug testing (UDT) is increasingly performed as a means of identifying aberrant behavior that may be grounds for discontinuation of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Little is known, however, about the ways in which positive UDT results may differentially inform decisions to discontinue LTOT based on the type of substance for which the UDT screened positive. The aim of this study was to examine the likelihood of clinician-initiated discontinuation of LTOT attributed to positive UDT results across three discrete categories of substances: (1) cannabis, (2) alcohol or illicit substances (excluding cannabis), and (3) controlled prescription medications that were not prescribed.

DESIGN

This retrospective study utilized the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System. Corporate Data Warehouse to assemble a sample of 600 patients with substance use disorders and matched controls who were discontinued from LTOT in 2012. Comprehensive manual medical record review identified UDT results in the year prior to discontinuation and reason(s) for discontinuation.

PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS

Patients with one or more UDTs positive for a single substance (N = 185) comprised the study sample.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Likelihood of clinician-initiated discontinuation attributed to a positive UDT across the three categories.

RESULTS

Patients with one or more UDTs positive for cannabis were more likely to be discontinued from opioid therapy as a result of the positive UDT compared to those with one or more UDTs positive for nonprescribed prescription medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 18.05, 95% CI = 7.29-44.66). Similarly, patients with UDTs positive for alcohol or illicit substances were more likely to be discontinued for the positive UDTs relative to patients who tested positive for nonprescribed prescription medications (adjusted OR = 13.10, 95% CI = 4.81-35.68). No difference in UDT-related discontinuation decisions was evident between patients with UDTs positive for alcohol/illicit substances versus cannabis (adjusted OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 0.57-3.77).

CONCLUSIONS

High odds of UDT-related discontinuation were found in patients who tested positive for cannabis, alcohol, or illicit substances, relative to nonprescribed prescription medications.

Urine and oral fluid drug testing in support of pain management

In recent years, the abuse of opioid drugs has resulted in greater prevalence of addiction, overdose, and deaths attributable to opioid abuse. The epidemic of opioid abuse has prompted professional and government agencies to issue practice guidelines for prescribing opioids to manage chronic pain. An important tool available to providers is the drug test for use in the initial assessment of patients for possible opioid therapy, subsequent monitoring of compliance, and documentation of suspected aberrant drug behaviors. This review discusses the issues that most affect the clinical utility of drug testing in chronic pain management with opioid therapy. It focuses on the two most commonly used specimen matrices in drug testing: urine and oral fluid. The advantages and disadvantages of urine and oral fluid in the entire testing process, from specimen collection and analytical methodologies to result interpretation are reviewed. The analytical sensitivity and specificity limitations of immunoassays used for testing are examined in detail to draw attention to how these shortcomings can affect result interpretation and influence clinical decision-making in pain management. The need for specific identification and quantitative measurement of the drugs and metabolites present to investigate suspected aberrant drug behavior or unexpected positive results is analyzed. Also presented are recent developments in optimization of test menus and testing strategies, such as the modification of the standard screen and reflexed-confirmation testing model by eliminating some of the initial immunoassay-based tests and proceeding directly to definitive testing by mass spectrometry assays.

Improving Pain Care with Project ECHO in Community Health Centers

OBJECTIVE

Pain is an extremely common complaint in primary care, and patient outcomes are often suboptimal. This project evaluated the impact of Project ECHO Pain videoconference case-based learning sessions on knowledge and quality of pain care in two Federally Qualified Health Centers.

DESIGN

Quasi-experimental, pre-post intervention, with comparison group.

SETTING

Two large, multisite federally qualified health centers in Connecticut and Arizona.

SUBJECTS

Intervention (N = 10) and comparison (N = 10) primary care providers.

METHODS

Primary care providers attended 48 weekly Project ECHO Pain sessions between January and December 2013, led by a multidisciplinary pain specialty team. Surveys and focus groups assessed providers' pain-related knowledge and self-efficacy. Electronic health record data were analyzed to evaluate opioid prescribing and specialty referrals.

RESULTS

Compared with control, primary care providers in the intervention had a significantly greater increase in pain-related knowledge and self-efficacy. Providers who attended ECHO were more likely to use formal assessment tools and opioid agreements and refer to behavioral health and physical therapy compared with control providers. Opioid prescribing decreased significantly more among providers in the intervention compared with those in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain is an extremely common and challenging problem, particularly among vulnerable patients such as those cared for at the more than 1,200 Federally Qualified Health Centers in the United States. In this study, attendance at weekly Project ECHO Pain sessions not only improved knowledge and self-efficacy, but also altered prescribing and referral patterns, suggesting that knowledge acquired during ECHO sessions translated into practice changes.

From Opiophobia to Overprescribing: A Critical Scoping Review of Medical Education Training for Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is a significant health problem strongly associated with a wide range of physical and mental health problems, including addiction. The widespread prevalence of pain and the increasing rate of opioid prescriptions have led to a focus on how physicians are educated about chronic pain. This critical scoping review describes the current literature in this important area, identifying gaps and suggesting avenues for further research starting from patients' standpoint.

METHODS

A search of the ERIC, MEDLINE, and Social Sciences Abstracts databases, as well as 10 journals related to medical education, was conducted to identify studies of the training of medical students, residents, and fellows in chronic noncancer pain.

RESULTS

The database and hand-searches identified 545 articles; of these, 39 articles met inclusion criteria and underwent full review. Findings were classified into four inter-related themes. We found that managing chronic pain has been described as stressful by trainees, but few studies have investigated implications for their well-being or ability to provide empathetic care. Even fewer studies have investigated how educational strategies impact patient care. We also note that the literature generally focuses on opioids and gives less attention to education in nonpharmacological approaches as well as nonopioid medications.

DISCUSSION

The findings highlight significant discrepancies between the prevalence of chronic pain in society and the low priority assigned to educating future physicians about the complexities of pain and the social context of those afflicted. This suggests the need for better pain education as well as attention to the "hidden curriculum."

Provider confidence in opioid prescribing and chronic pain management: results of the Opioid Therapy Provider Survey

Introduction

Many providers report lack of confidence in managing patients with chronic pain. Thus, the primary aim of this study was to investigate the associations of provider confidence in managing chronic pain with their practice behaviors and demographics.

Materials and methods

The primary outcome measure was the results of the Opioid Therapy Provider Survey, which was administered to clinicians attending a pain-focused continuing medical education conference. Nonparametric correlations were assessed using Spearman’s rho.

Results

Of the respondents, 55.0% were women, 92.8% were white, and 56.5% were physicians. Primary care providers accounted for 56.5% of the total respondents. The majority of respondents (60.8%) did not feel confident managing patients with chronic pain. Provider confidence in managing chronic pain was positively correlated with 1) following an opioid therapy protocol (P=0.001), 2) the perceived ability to identify patients at risk for opioid misuse (P=0.006), and 3) using a consistent practice-based approach to improve their comfort level with prescribing opioids (P<0.001). Provider confidence was negatively correlated with the perception that treating pain patients was a “problem in my practice” (P=0.005).

Conclusion

In this study, the majority of providers did not feel confident managing chronic pain. However, provider confidence was associated with a protocolized and consistent practice-based approach toward managing opioids and the perceived ability to identify patients at risk for opioid misuse. Future studies should investigate whether provider confidence is associated with measurable competence in managing chronic pain and explore approaches to enhance appropriate levels of confidence in caring for patients with chronic pain.

What do providers want to know about opioid prescribing? A qualitative analysis of their questions

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responded to the opioid crisis with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, requiring manufacturers of extended-release/long-acting opioids to fund continuing medical education based on the "FDA Blueprint for Prescriber Education." Topics in the Blueprint are "Assessing Patients for Treatment," "Initiating Therapy, Modifying Dosing, and Discontinuing Use," "Managing Therapy," "Counseling Patients and Caregivers about Safe Use," "General Drug Information," and "Specific Drug Information." Based on the FDA Blueprint, Boston University School of Medicine's "Safe and Competent Opioid Prescribing Education" (SCOPE of Pain) offers live trainings for physicians and other prescribers. During trainings, participants submit written questions about the curriculum and/or their clinical experiences.

METHODS

The objective was to compare themes that arose from questions asked by SCOPE of Pain participants with content of the FDA Blueprint in order to evaluate how well the Blueprint answers prescribers' concerns. The authors conducted qualitative analyses of all 1309 questions submitted by participants in 29 trainings across 16 states from May 2013 to May 2015, using conventional content analysis to code the questions. Themes that emerged from participants' questions were then compared with the Blueprint.

RESULTS

Most themes fell into the topic categories of the Blueprint. Five main themes diverged: Participants sought information on (1) safe alternatives to opioids, (2) overcoming barriers to safe opioid prescribing, (3) government regulations of opioid prescribing, (4) the role of marijuana in opioid prescribing, and (5) maintaining a positive provider-patient relationship while prescribing opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to learning the mechanics of safe opioid prescribing, providers want to understand government regulations and effective patient communication skills. Aware of the limitations of opioids in managing chronic pain, providers seek advice on alternatives therapies. Future updates to the FDA Blueprint and other educational guidelines on opioid prescribing should address providers' additional questions.

Patients' Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Regular Alcohol Urine Screening: A Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Despite its wide implementation, there is a paucity of data supporting the effectiveness of regular alcohol urine screening (RAUS) in maintaining abstinence. This study aims at investigating if RAUS serves other purposes, what attitudes patients display towards it, and patients' technical knowledge about basic screening notions.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional survey among adults with alcohol dependence, attending outpatient alcohol-dependence treatment. It aimed at investigating patients' attitudes and beliefs towards RAUS, and technical notions of alcohol urine screening. For attitude assessment, we adapted the Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI-10) to the field of alcohol urine screening. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity were evaluated for the adapted questionnaire.

RESULTS

In all, 128 patients completed the questionnaire. Patients rated RAUS as high. The DAI-10 mean score was 7.2 (SD = 3.6). Internal consistency analysis revealed a Cronbach alpha of 0.718. Test-retest reliability evaluation yielded an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.932. The score of a single Likert-type question about overall perceived value was 8.5 (SD = 2). Their correlation with mean DAI-10 score was of r = 0.254, with P = 0.009. Apart from relapse prevention, patients frequently reported other functions such as showing professionals and family members that they do not drink, or having a closer contact with professionals. A majority of patients believed alcohol use goes undetected after 48 hours from last ingestion.

CONCLUSION

Regular alcohol screening is highly valued by alcohol outpatients. It seems that apart from relapse prevention, other functions related to therapeutic alliance building, social desirability, and impression management also play a key role.

Improving pain care through implementation of the Stepped Care Model at a multisite community health center

PURPOSE

Treating pain in primary care is challenging. Primary care providers (PCPs) receive limited training in pain care and express low confidence in their knowledge and ability to manage pain effectively. Models to improve pain outcomes have been developed, but not formally implemented in safety net practices where pain is particularly common. This study evaluated the impact of implementing the Stepped Care Model for Pain Management (SCM-PM) at a large, multisite Federally Qualified Health Center.

METHODS

The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework guided the implementation of the SCM-PM. The multicomponent intervention included: education on pain care, new protocols for pain assessment and management, implementation of an opioid management dashboard, telehealth consultations, and enhanced onsite specialty resources. Participants included 25 PCPs and their patients with chronic pain (3,357 preintervention and 4,385 postintervention) cared for at Community Health Center, Inc. Data were collected from the electronic health record and supplemented by chart reviews. Surveys were administered to PCPs to assess knowledge, attitudes, and confidence.

RESULTS

Providers' pain knowledge scores increased to an average of 11% from baseline; self-rated confidence in ability to manage pain also increased. Use of opioid treatment agreements and urine drug screens increased significantly by 27.3% and 22.6%, respectively. Significant improvements were also noted in documentation of pain, pain treatment, and pain follow-up. Referrals to behavioral health providers for patients with pain increased by 5.96% (P=0.009). There was no significant change in opioid prescribing.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the SCM-PM resulted in clinically significant improvements in several quality of pain care outcomes. These findings, if sustained, may translate into improved patient outcomes.

Clinical and Public Health Considerations in Urine Drug Testing to Identify and Treat Substance Use

BACKGROUND

To expand appropriate use of substance use testing, practitioners must increase their knowledge of the appropriate methodology, scope, and frequency. Yet, there is a current lack of accepted guidelines on clinical testing to identify and treat substance use.

OBJECTIVES

This article (1) conveys the importance of substance use testing as a clinical and public health response to trends of prescription drug abuse and increased access to medical and commercialized marijuana; (2) summarizes central features of the rapidly evolving science and the practice of patient-centered substance use testing in a clinical setting; and (3) provides recommendations that balance costs and benefits and serve as a starting point for appropriate testing to prevent, identify, and treat substance use disorders.

METHODS

The author conducted a search of peer-reviewed and government-supported articles and books in electronic databases and used her own knowledge and clinical experience.

RESULTS

The author makes recommendations for determining the methodology, scope, and frequency of testing in each stage of care based on clinical considerations and methodological factors. Conclusion/Importance: Integrating sensible substance use testing broadly into clinical health care to identify substance use, diagnose substance use disorders, and guide patients into treatment can improve health outcomes and reduce the costs of substance use and addiction. No single testing regimen is suitable for all clinical scenarios; rather, a multitude of options, as discussed herein, can be adapted to meet a patient's unique needs. Ultimately, the practitioner must combine patient-specific information with knowledge of test technologies, capabilities, limitations, and costs.

The Association Between Receipt of Guideline-Concordant Long-Term Opioid Therapy and All-Cause Mortality

PURPOSE

For patients receiving long-term opioid therapy (LtOT), the impact of guideline-concordant care on important clinical outcomes--notably mortality--is largely unknown, even among patients with a high comorbidity and mortality burden (e.g., HIV-infected patients). Our objective was to determine the association between receipt of guideline-concordant LtOT and 1-year all-cause mortality.

METHODS

Among HIV-infected and uninfected patients initiating LtOT between 2000 and 2010 through the Department of Veterans Affairs, we used Cox regression with time-updated covariates and propensity-score matched analyses to examine the association between receipt of guideline-concordant care and 1-year all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Of 17,044 patients initiating LtOT between 2000 and 2010, 1048 patients (6%) died during 1 year of follow-up. Patients receiving psychotherapeutic co-interventions (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.75; P < 0.001) or physical rehabilitative therapies (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67-0.98; P = 0.03) had a decreased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients not receiving these services, whereas patients prescribed benzodiazepines concurrent with opioids had a higher risk of mortality (HR 1.39; 95% CI 1.12-1.66; P < 0.001). Among patients with a current substance use disorder (SUD), those receiving SUD treatment had a lower risk of mortality than untreated patients (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.32-0.68; P = < 0.001). No association was found between all-cause mortality and primary care visits (HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.90-1.26; P = 0.32) or urine drug testing (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78-1.17; P = 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Providers should use caution in initiating LtOT in conjunction with benzodiazepines and untreated SUDs. Patients receiving LtOT may benefit from multi-modal treatment that addresses chronic pain and its associated comorbidities across multiple disciplines.

Primary care providers' experiences with urine toxicology tests to manage prescription opioid misuse and substance use among chronic noncancer pain patients in safety net health care settings

BACKGROUND

Guideline recommendations to reduce prescription opioid misuse among patients with chronic noncancer pain include the routine use of urine toxicology tests for high-risk patients. Yet little is known about how the implementation of urine toxicology tests among patients with co-occurring chronic noncancer pain and substance use impacts primary care providers' management of misuse. Clinicians' perspectives on the benefits and challenges of implementing urine toxicology tests in the monitoring of opioid misuse and substance use in safety net health care settings are presented in this paper.

METHODS

Twenty-three primary care providers from 6 safety net health care settings whose patients had a diagnosis of co-occurring chronic noncancer pain and substance use were interviewed. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

The benefits of implementing urine toxicology tests for primary care providers included less reliance on intuition to assess for misuse and the ability to identify unknown opioid misuse and/or substance use. The challenges of implementing urine toxicology tests included insufficient education and training about how to interpret and implement tests, and a lack of clarity on how and when to act on tests that indicated misuse and/or substance use.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that primary care clinicians' lack of education and training to interpret and implement urine toxicology tests may impact their management of patient opioid misuse and/or substance use. Clinicians may benefit from additional education and training about the clinical implementation and use of urine toxicology tests. Additional research is needed on how primary care providers implementation and use of urine toxicology tests impacts chronic noncancer pain management in primary care and safety net health care settings among patients with co-occurring chronic non cancer pain and substance use.

Risks and responsibilities in prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain, part 2: best practices

Opioids are increasingly prescribed to provide effective therapy for chronic noncancer pain, but increased use also means an increased risk of abuse. Primary care physicians treating patients with chronic noncancer pain are concerned about adverse events and risk of abuse and dependence associated with opioids, yet many prescribers do not follow established guidelines for the use of these agents, either through unawareness or in the mistaken belief that urine toxicology testing is all that is needed to monitor compliance and thwart abuse. Although there is no foolproof way to identify an abuser and prevent abuse, the best way to minimize the risk of abuse is to follow established guidelines for the use of opioids. These guidelines entail a careful assessment of the patient, the painful condition to be treated, and the estimated level of risk of abuse based on several factors: history of abuse and current or past psychiatric disorders; design of a therapeutic regimen that includes both pharmacotherapeutic and nonpharmacologic modalities; a formal written agreement with the patient that defines treatment expectations and responsibilities; selection of an appropriate agent, including consideration of formulations designed to deter tampering and abuse; initiation of treatment at a low dosage with titration in gradual increments as needed to achieve effective analgesia; regular reassessment to watch for signs of abuse, to perform drug monitoring, and to adjust medication as needed; and established protocols for actions to be taken in case of suspected abuse. By following these guidelines, physicians can prescribe opioids to provide effective analgesia while reducing the likelihood of abuse.

Overtreatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria: identifying provider barriers to evidence-based care

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate use of antibiotics to treat asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is a significant contributor to antibiotic overuse in hospitalized patients despite evidence-based guidelines on ASB management. We surveyed whether accurate knowledge of how to manage catheter-associated urine cultures was associated with level of training, familiarity with ASB guidelines, and various cognitive-behavioral constructs.

METHODS

We used a survey to measure respondents' knowledge of how to manage catheter-associated bacteriuria, familiarity with the content of the relevant Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines, and cognitive-behavioral constructs. The survey was administered to 169 residents and staff providers.

RESULTS

The mean knowledge score was 57.5%, or slightly over one-half of the questions answered correctly. The overall knowledge score improved significantly with level of training (P < .0001). Only 42% of respondents reported greater than minimal recall of ASB guideline contents. Self-efficacy, behavior, risk perceptions, social norms, and guideline familiarity were individually correlated with knowledge score (P < .01). In multivariable analysis, behavior, risk perception, and year of training were correlated with knowledge score (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of how to manage catheter-associated bacteriuria according to evidence-based guidelines increases with experience. Addressing both knowledge gaps and relevant cognitive biases early in training may decrease the inappropriate use of antibiotics to treat ASB.

Mitigating the risk of opioid abuse through a balanced undergraduate pain medicine curriculum

Chronic pain is highly prevalent in the United States and Canada, occurring in an estimated 30% of the adult population. Despite its high prevalence, US and Canadian medical schools provide very little training in pain management, including training in the safe and effective use of potent analgesics, most notably opioids. In 2005, the International Association for the Study of Pain published recommendations for a core undergraduate pain management curriculum, and several universities have implemented pilot programs based on this curriculum. However, when outcomes have been formally assessed, these initiatives have resulted in only modest improvements in physician knowledge about chronic pain and its treatment. This article discusses strategies to improve undergraduate pain management curricula and proposes areas in which those efforts can be augmented. Emphasis is placed on opioids, which have great potency as analgesics but also substantial risks in terms of adverse events and the risk of abuse and addiction. The authors conclude that the most important element of an undergraduate pain curriculum is clinical experience under mentors who are capable of reinforcing didactic learning by modeling best practices.

A survey of resident physicians' knowledge regarding urine testing and subsequent antimicrobial treatment

BACKGROUND

Asymptomatic bacteriuria is often treated with antimicrobials despite no benefit to patients, contributing to antimicrobial resistance and costs. Identifying knowledge deficits may improve physician training and antimicrobial stewardship efforts. We surveyed internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics resident physicians about their knowledge and attitudes regarding urine testing and subsequent management.

METHODS

We surveyed 280 resident physicians at Jackson Memorial Hospital/University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and the University of Minnesota Medical School, using patient management questions based on clinical vignettes. Overall knowledge, assessed by calculating the percentage of correct answers, was assessed for correlation with demographic information, training, and experience.

RESULTS

Of 100 responses (36% response rate), the mean percentage of correct answers was 48% (range for individual questions, 19%-85%). Experience and demographic factors demonstrated no association with overall knowledge. Training appeared to be associated with overall knowledge, with third-year residents having significantly higher percentages of correct answers compared with first-year residents (53% vs 40%; P = .03), but this was nonsignificant when adjusted for multiple comparisons (P = .18). Knowledge was significantly better for questions regarding surgical versus nonsurgical scenarios (63% vs 37%; P < .001), and for questions for which the correct answer was to start antimicrobials, versus withholding antimicrobials/limiting further testing (83% vs 39%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge deficits may contribute to unnecessary detection and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria.

Laboratory testing for prescription opioids

Opioid analgesic misuse has risen significantly over the past two decades, and these drugs now represent the most commonly abused class of prescription medications. They are a major cause of poisoning deaths in the USA exceeding heroin and cocaine. Laboratory testing plays a role in the detection of opioid misuse and the evaluation of patients with opioid intoxication. Laboratories use both immunoassay and chromatographic methods (e.g., liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry detection), often in combination, to yield high detection sensitivity and drug specificity. Testing methods for opioids originated in the workplace-testing arena and focused on detection of illicit heroin use. Analysis for a wide range of opioids is now required in the context of the prescription opioid epidemic. Testing methods have also been primarily based upon urine screening; however, methods for analyzing alternative samples such as saliva, sweat, and hair are available. Application of testing to monitor prescription opioid drug therapy is an increasingly important use of drug testing, and this area of testing introduces new interpretative challenges. In particular, drug metabolism may transform one clinically available opioid into another. The sensitivity of testing methods also varies considerably across the spectrum of opioid drugs. An understanding of opioid metabolism and method sensitivity towards different opioid drugs is therefore essential to effective use of these tests. Improved testing algorithms and more research into the effective use of drug testing in the clinical setting, particularly in pain medicine and substance abuse, are needed.