Protecting Pain Patients. The Evaluation of a Chronic Pain Educational Intervention

A Systematic Review of Pain Management Education in Graduate Medical Education

BACKGROUND

Despite the importance of pain management across specialties and the effect of poor management on patients, many physicians are uncomfortable managing pain. This may be related, in part, to deficits in graduate medical education (GME).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the methodological rigor of and summarize findings from literature on GME interventions targeting acute and chronic non-cancer pain management.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) to identify studies published before March 2019 that had a focus on non-cancer pain management, majority of GME learners, defined educational intervention, and reported outcome. Quality of design was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education (NOS-E). One author summarized educational foci and methods.

RESULTS

The original search yielded 6149 studies; 26 met inclusion criteria. Mean MERSQI score was 11.6 (SD 2.29) of a maximum 18; mean NOS-E score was 2.60 (SD 1.22) out of 6. Most studies employed a single group, pretest-posttest design (n=16, 64%). Outcomes varied: 6 (24%) evaluated reactions (Kirkpatrick level 1), 12 (48%) evaluated learner knowledge (level 2), 5 (20%) evaluated behavior (level 3), and 2 (8%) evaluated patient outcomes (level 4). Interventions commonly focused on chronic pain (n=18, 69%) and employed traditional lectures (n=16, 62%) and case-based learning (n=14, 54%).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain management education research in GME largely evaluated chronic pain management interventions by assessing learner reactions or knowledge at single sites.

Deprescribing intervention activities mapped to guiding principles for use in general practice: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and characterise activities for deprescribing used in general practice and to map the identified activities to pioneering principles of deprescribing.

SETTING

Primary care.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, OpenGrey, Annals of Family Medicine, BMC Family Practice, Family Practice and British Journal of General Practice (BJGP) from inception to the end of June 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were original research (randomised controlled trial, quasi-experimental, cohort study, qualitative and case studies), protocol papers and protocol registrations.

DATA EXTRACTION

Screening and data extraction was completed by one reviewer; 10% of the studies were independently reviewed by a second reviewer. Coding of full-text articles in NVivo was conducted and mapped to five deprescribing principles.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included. The most frequently used activities were identification of appropriate patients for deprescribing (76%), patient education (50%), general practitioners (GP) education (48%), and development and use of a tapering schedule (38%). Six activities did not align with the five deprescribing principles. As such, two principles (engage practice staff in education and appropriate identification of patients, and provide feedback to staff about deprescribing occurrences within the practice) were added.

CONCLUSION

Activities and guiding principles for deprescribing should be paired together to provide an accessible and comprehensive guide to deprescribing by GPs. The addition of two principles suggests that practice staff and practice management teams may play an instrumental role in sustaining deprescribing processes within clinical practice. Future research is required to determine the most of effective activities to use within each principle and by whom.

Muscle relaxant use and the associated risk of incident frailty in patients with diabetic kidney disease: a longitudinal cohort study

Background:

Patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) are at an increased risk of frailty. The exposure to muscle relaxants frequently leads to adverse effects despite their modest therapeutic efficacy, but whether muscle relaxants predispose users to frailty remains unclear.

Methods:

Patients with DKD from a population-based cohort, the Longitudinal Cohort of Diabetes Patients, were identified between 2004 and 2011 (N = 840,000). Muscle relaxant users were propensity score-matched to never-users in a 1:1 ratio based on demographic features, comorbidities, outcome-relevant medications, and prior major interventions. Incident frailty, the study endpoint, was measured according to a modified FRAIL scale. We used Kaplan–Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazard regression to analyze the association between cumulative muscle relaxant use (⩾ 28 days) and the risk of incident frailty.

Results:

Totally, 11,637 users and matched never-users were enrolled, without significant differences regarding baseline clinical features. Cox proportional hazard regression showed that patients with DKD and received muscle relaxants had a significantly higher risk of incident frailty than never-users [hazard ratio (HR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–1.53]. This increase in frailty risk paralleled that in cumulative muscle relaxant dosages (quartile 1 versus 2 versus 3 versus 4, HR 0.91 versus 1.22 versus 1.38 versus 1.45, p = 0.0013 for trend) and in exposure durations (quartile 1 versus 2 versus 3 versus 4, HR 1.12 versus 1.33 versus 1.23 versus 1.34, p = 0.0145 for trend) of muscle relaxants.

Conclusion:

We found that cumulative muscle relaxant exposure might increase frailty risk. It is prudent to limit muscle relaxant prescription in patients with DKD.

Plain language summary

Does cumulative muscle relaxant exposure increase the risk of incident frailty among patients with diabetic kidney disease?

Background: Frailty denotes a degenerative feature that adversely influences one’s survival and daily function. Patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease are at a higher risk of developing frailty, but whether concurrent medications, especially muscle relaxants, aggravate this risk remains undefined.

Methods: In this population-based study including 11,637 muscle relaxant users and matched never-users with diabetic kidney disease, we used a renowned frailty-assessing tool, FRAIL scale, to assess frailty severity and examined the incidence of frailty brought by muscle relaxant exposure.

Results: We found that users exhibited a 26% higher risk of developing incident frailty compared with never-users, and the probability increased further if users were prescribed higher doses or longer durations of muscle relaxants.

Conclusion: We concluded that in those with diabetic kidney disease, cumulative muscle relaxant use was associated with a higher risk of incident frailty, suggesting that moderation of muscle relaxant use in this population can be of potential importance.