Provider Experiences With the Identification, Management, and Treatment of Co-occurring Chronic Noncancer Pain and Substance Use in the Safety Net

Urine drug testing among Medicaid enrollees initiating buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder within 9 MODRN states

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines recommend regular urine drug testing (UDT) for persons initiating buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, little is known about UDT utilization. We describe state variation in UDT utilization and examine demographic, health, and health care utilization factors associated with UDT in Medicaid.

METHODS

We used Medicaid claims and enrollment data from persons initiating buprenorphine treatment for OUD during 2016-2019 in 9 states (DE, KY, MD, ME, MI, NC, PA, WI, WV). The main outcome was at least 1 UDT within 180 days of buprenorphine initiation, the secondary outcome was at least 3. Logistic regression models included demographics, pre-initiation comorbidities, and health service use. State estimates were pooled using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 162,437 Medicaid enrollees initiating buprenorphine. The percent receiving ≥1 UDT varied from 62.1% to 89.8% by state. In the pooled analysis, enrollees with pre-initiation UDT had much higher odds of ≥1 UDT after initiation (aOR=3.83, 3.09-4.73); odds were also higher for enrollees with HIV, HCV, and/or HBV infection (aOR=1.25, 1.05-1.48) or who initiated in later years (2018 v 2016: aOR=1.39, 1.03-1.89; 2019 v 2016: aOR=1.67, 1.24-2.25). The odds of having ≥3 UDT were lower with pre-initiation opioid overdose (aOR=0.79, 0.64-0.96) and higher with pre-initiation UDT (aOR=2.63, 2.13-3.25) or OUD care (aOR=1.35, 1.04-1.74). The direction of associations with demographics varied by state.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of UDT increased over time and there was variability among states in UDT rates and demographic predictors of UDT. Pre-initiation conditions, UDT, and OUD care were associated with UDT.

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.

Factors Associated with Pain Treatment Satisfaction Among Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain and Substance Use

INTRODUCTION

A better understanding of pain treatment satisfaction in patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and substance use is needed, especially as opioid prescribing policies are changing. We sought to identify factors associated with pain treatment satisfaction in individuals with CNCP on recent opioid therapy and prior or active substance use.

METHODS

An exploratory cross-sectional analysis using baseline data from a cohort study of 300 adults with CNCP receiving >20 morphine milligram equivalents of opioids for ≥3 of the preceding 12 months and prior or active substance use. Participants completed interviews, clinical assessments, urine drug screening, and medical chart review.

RESULTS

Participants were predominantly middle-aged (mean age 57.5 years), Black (44%), and cisgender men (60%). One-third (33%) had high, 28% moderate, and 39% low pain treatment satisfaction. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), tobacco use, past-year opioid discontinuation, and higher average pain scores were associated with lower satisfaction. HIV and prescription cannabis use were associated with higher satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between PTSD and tobacco use with lower satisfaction should be explored to augment pain outcomes. Higher satisfaction among individuals with HIV and prescription cannabis use presents potential research areas to guide CNCP management and reduce reliance on opioid therapies.

Comparison of Patient Experience Between Primary Care Settings Tailored for Homeless Clientele and Mainstream Care Settings

BACKGROUND

More than 1 million Americans receive primary care from federal homeless health care programs yearly. Vulnerabilities that can make care challenging include pain, addiction, psychological distress, and a lack of shelter. Research on the effectiveness of tailoring services for this population is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to examine whether homeless-tailored primary care programs offer a superior patient experience compared with nontailored ("mainstream") programs overall, and for highly vulnerable patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN

National patient survey comparing 26 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers' homeless-tailored primary care ("H-PACT"s) to mainstream primary care ("mainstream PACT"s) at the same locations.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 5766 homeless-experienced veterans.

MEASURES

Primary care experience on 4 scales: Patient-Clinician Relationship, Cooperation, Accessibility/Coordination, and Homeless-Specific Needs. Mean scores (range: 1-4) were calculated and dichotomized as unfavorable versus not. We counted key vulnerabilities (chronic pain, unsheltered homelessness, severe psychological distress, and history of overdose, 0-4), and categorized homeless-experienced veterans as having fewer (≤1) and more (≥2) vulnerabilities.

RESULTS

H-PACTs outscored mainstream PACTs on all scales (all P<0.001). Unfavorable care experiences were more common in mainstream PACTs compared with H-PACTs, with adjusted risk differences of 11.9% (95% CI=6.3-17.4), 12.6% (6.2-19.1), 11.7% (6.0-17.3), and 12.6% (6.2-19.1) for Relationship, Cooperation, Access/Coordination, and Homeless-Specific Needs, respectively. For the Relationship and Cooperation scales, H-PACTs were associated with a greater reduction in unfavorable experience for patients with ≥2 vulnerabilities versus ≤1 (interaction P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Organizations that offer primary care for persons experiencing homelessness can improve the primary care experience by tailoring the design and delivery of services.

A Scoping Review of Nursing's Contribution to the Management of Patients with Pain and Opioid Misuse

BACKGROUND

Nursing brings a unique lens to care of patients with pain and opioid misuse.

AIMS

This scoping review describes nursing's contribution to the literature on the management of patients with pain and opioid misuse, generating evidence to guide clinical care.

DESIGN

The scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline.

DATA SOURCES

Using combined key terms ("opioid misuse," "pain," "nursing") in systematic searches in PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) electronic databases, snowball technique, and personal knowledge resulted in 108 relevant articles, reports, and websites.

ANALYSIS METHOD

Summative approach to content analysis was used to quantify and describe nursing's contribution to the literature.

RESULTS

Contributions of nurses emerged in the areas of research, clinical practice, policy, and education. The highest number of publications addressed research (50%, 54 of 108), whereas the fewest number of publications involved education (7%, 8 of 108).

CONCLUSION

Results provide a picture of the breadth of expertise and crucial leadership that nurses contribute to influence management of patients with pain and opioid misuse.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

This scoping review indicates the importance of continued support from key stakeholders, including training and interprofessional collaboration opportunities supported by the National Institutes of Health, to sustain nursing's contribution to quality care of patients with pain and opioid misuse. Ultimately, all health care professionals must collaborate to conduct rigorous research and construct evidence-based guidelines to inform policy initiatives and education strategies to solve the complex co-occurring epidemics of pain and opioid misuse.

A crack in the wall: Chronic pain management in integrative group medical visits

Amidst a national crisis of opioid overdose, substantial uncertainty remains over how to safely and effectively address chronic pain. In response to this crisis, safety-net primary care clinics are instituting integrative group medical visits (IGMVs) for chronic pain management. Through two qualitative studies of IGMVs, we found that these groups acted as workarounds implemented by clinicians seeking to innovate upon standard pain management protocols. While clinical uncertainty is often framed as a problem to be managed, in this instance, overlapping uncertainties provided an opportunity through which enterprising clinicians could generate reform at the local level. However, these clinician-led changes were incremental, situational, and partial, and occurred outside of broader systemic reform. In the following article, we draw on 46 interviews with clinicians and staff associated with IGMVs and observations of 34 sessions of 22 distinct IGMVs. We begin by describing the structure of the IGMVs we observed. We analyze the multiple uncertainties surrounding chronic pain and its treatment at the time of our data collection, just before the opioid crisis was declared a national public health emergency. We then demonstrate how clinicians tinkered with existing pain management protocols via their involvement with IGMVs. Lastly, we discuss the conditions of possibility that allowed for the existence of IGMVs at our study sites, as well as the conditions of limitation that restricted the expansion of these groups. Our research points to the potential of IGMVs for treating chronic pain, while showing that IGMVs continue as an innovation by individual clinicians, not as a result of broader reforms.

Traumatic Brain Injury and Receipt of Prescription Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain in Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans: Do Clinical Practice Guidelines Matter?

Clinical practice guidelines admonish against prescribing opioids for individuals with chronic pain and traumatic brain injury (TBI) because of increased risk for adverse outcomes, yet no studies have described opioid prescribing patterns in these higher-risk patients. Between October 2007 and March 2015, 53,124 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans with chronic pain not prescribed opioids in the previous year were followed for 1 year after completing a Comprehensive TBI Evaluation within the Department of Veterans Affairs health care facilities. Veterans reporting the most severe TBI sequelae (eg, loss of consciousness >30 minutes) were significantly more likely to receive short-term and long-term opioid therapy than those with less severe or no TBI sequelae (P values < .001). In analyses adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, military service, pain disability, and previous nonopioid treatment modalities, veterans with moderate to severe TBI had a significantly increased risk of receiving opioid therapy. Veterans with moderate to severe TBI and comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder and depression had an even greater risk of initiating long-term opioid therapy in the year after the Comprehensive TBI Evaluation (adjusted relative risk = 3.57 [95% confidence interval = 2.85-4.47]). Higher-risk patients with chronic pain and TBI with mental health comorbidities may benefit from improved access to behavioral health and nonpharmacological therapies for chronic pain.

PERSPECTIVE

Paradoxically, veterans with greater TBI severity and comorbid mental health burden are more likely to be prescribed opioids for chronic pain. More vulnerable veterans may benefit from improved access to behavioral health and nonpharmacological modalities for chronic pain, because of the health and safety risks of opioids.

Opioid pharmacovigilance: A clinical-social history of the changes in opioid prescribing for patients with co-occurring chronic non-cancer pain and substance use

There is growing concern among US-based clinicians, patients, policy makers, and in the media about the personal and community health risks associated with opioids. Perceptions about the efficacy and appropriateness of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) have dramatically transformed in recent decades. Yet, there is very little social scientific research identifying the factors that have informed this transformation from the perspectives of prescribing clinicians. As part of an on-going ethnographic study of CNCP management among clinicians and their patients with co-occurring substance use, we interviewed 23 primary care clinicians who practice in safety-net clinical settings. In this paper, we describe the clinical and social influences informing three historic periods: (1) the escalation of opioid prescriptions for CNCP; (2) an interim period in which the efficacy of and risks associated with opioids were re-assessed; and (3) the current period of "opioid pharmacovigilance," characterized by the increased surveillance of opioid prescriptions. Clinicians reported that interpretations of the evidence-base in favor of and opposing opioid prescribing for CNCP evolved within a larger clinical-social context. Historically, pharmaceutical marketing efforts and clinicians' concerns about racialized healthcare disparities in pain treatment influenced opioid prescription decision-making. Clinicians emphasized how patients' medical complexity (e.g. multiple chronic health conditions) and structural vulnerability (e.g. poverty, community violence) impacted access to opioids within resource-limited healthcare settings. This clinical-social history of opioid prescribing practices helps to elucidate the ongoing challenges of CNCP treatment in the US healthcare safety net and lends needed specificity to the broader, nationwide conversation about opioids.