Developing and Initiating Validation of a Model Opioid Patient-Prescriber Agreement as a Tool for Patient-Centered Pain Treatment

Pain Management in Oncology Patients Amidst the Opioid Epidemic: How To Minimize Non-Medical Opioid Use

The opioid epidemic continues to be a significant public health concern. On the surface, it appears difficult to understate the profound consequences and unnecessary loss of life at the hands of the opioid crisis throughout the 2010s. This reality should not dissuade rigorous attention toward those who have suffered unnecessarily due to an overreaching backlash toward the opioid crisis. Oncology patients have been significantly impacted on both ends of the opioid crisis. Like other populations, cancer patients were first affected during the initial surge of opioid availability, prescription, and use at the beginning of the crisis, where opioid abuse and overdose negatively impacted cancer patient populations at similar rates as the general population. Yet, cancer patients were perhaps even more heavily affected during secondary events after the initial crisis, as opioid restrictions and the stigmatization, undoubtedly beneficial in many spaces, of opioid use became prevalent across the American society. During this second period of the opioid crisis (loosely from 2013 to the present day after the Veterans Health Administration Opioid Safety Initiative started), restrictions on opioids have significantly decreased the use and access of opioids for cancer patients. Management of pain, in general, is a complex topic, and cancer pain is no exception. Cancer patients may experience pain related to the disease itself, its treatment, or other comorbidities. This review aims to clarify the impact of reducing opioid use on cancer patients over the past eight years. We summarize the challenges facing providers as they attempt to manage cancer-related pain. Additionally, we propose tools for best practices to reduce the unnecessary suffering of cancer patients and protect against the overuse and abuse of opioids.

How Do Clinicians of Different Specialties Perceive and Use Opioid Risk Mitigation Strategies? A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

In response to the opioid crisis, states and health systems are encouraging clinicians to use risk mitigation strategies aimed at assessing a patient's risk for opioid misuse or abuse: opioid agreements, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), and urine drug tests (UDT). Objective: The objective of this qualitative study was to understand how clinicians perceived and used risk mitigation strategies for opioid abuse/misuse and identify barriers to implementation. Methods: We interviewed clinicians who prescribe opioid medications in the outpatient setting from 2016-2018 and analyzed the data using Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology. Results: We interviewed 21 primary care clinicians and 12 specialists. Nearly all clinicians reported using the PDMP. Some clinicians (adopters) found the opioid agreement and UDTs to be valuable, but most (non-adopters) did not. Adopters found the agreements and UDTs helpful in treating patients equitably, setting limits, and having objective evidence of misuse; protocols and workflows facilitated the use of the strategies. Non-adopters perceived the strategies as awkward, disruptive to the clinician-patient relationship, and introducing a power differential; they also cited lack of time and resources as barriers to use. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that clinicians in certain settings have found effective ways to implement and use the PDMP, opioid agreements, and UDT but that other clinicians are less comfortable with their use. Administrators and policymakers should ensure that the strategies are designed in a way that strengthens the clinician-patient relationship while maximizing safety for patients and that clinicians are adequately trained and supported when introducing the strategies.

Exploring Patient Perceptions of Opioid Treatment Agreements in a Community Health Center Environment

OBJECTIVE

Describe patient attitudes toward opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) and characterize perceptions of their impact on patient care, behavior, communication with prescribers, and engagement with the health care system.

DESIGN

Qualitative descriptive study.

SETTING

Federally qualified health center with six clinic locations serving a rural population.

SUBJECTS

Patients were prescribed long-term opioid therapy and were required to sign an OTA through an in-person office visit with a clinical pharmacist.

METHODS

Patients who signed an OTA were recruited to participate in semistructured, in-person, one-on-one interviews. Data were analyzed using immersion-crystallization methods.

RESULTS

Among the 20 patients recruited, 50% were men; 70% were insured by the state's Medicaid program; and 85% were using opioids for hip, back, and/or neck pain. Four major themes arose from the interviews. First, individuals who use long-term opioids experience a wide variety of opioid-related fears and stigmas. Second, individuals articulated real or potential benefits from implementing OTAs. Third, opinions differed on whether OTAs affected behavior and reduced opioid misuse and diversion. Finally, individuals provided feedback on the health care system's OTA implementation process.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients experienced a wide variety of opioid-related fears and stigmas, including how OTA requirements can perpetuate these issues. Despite these feelings, participants articulated real or potential positive outcomes from the use of OTAs, although they were mixed on whether these agreements translated to any behavior changes. If OTAs are to become standard practice, future research is needed to describe the diversity of patient perspectives and experiences with OTAs and to evaluate their effect on patient outcomes.