Electronic opioid risk assessment program for chronic pain patients: barriers and benefits of implementation

Relative Abuse of Crush-Resistant Prescription Opioid Tablets via Alternative Oral Modes of Administration

Objective

Some crush-resistant tablet formulations (CRTs) reduce prescription opioid abuse by nonoral routes of administration (ROAs), especially insufflation and injection, while oral abuse increases. Oral abuse involving product manipulation vs swallowing whole for CRTs and comparators was examined.

Methods

Abuse by oral modes of administration (e.g., swallowing whole, chewing, dissolving in the mouth), was examined using the ASI-MV, a computerized, clinical interview for adults in substance abuse treatment from January 2009 to March 2015. CRTs (reformulated oxycodone extended-release [ER], reformulated oxymorphone ER, and tapentadol ER) were compared with non-CRT versions, morphine ER, and oxycodone immediate-release single entity. Analyses employed descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

Results

Among 364,329 unique assessments, 18,135 patients reported oral abuse of the CRTs and comparators examined. CRTs had a higher prevalence of oral abuse involving product manipulation than comparators (P < 0.0001) among all abusers of product. Oral abuse involving product manipulation for CRTs was greater among the subset of patients reporting oral abuse and significantly higher than comparators (P < 0.003). CRTs were significantly less likely than comparators to be swallowed whole (P < 0.0001) and significantly more likely to be chewed (P < 0.003). CRTs were more likely to be dissolved in the mouth than most comparators.

Conclusions

Results suggest the need for abuse-deterrent formulations designed to reduce abuse by oral administration with product manipulation, such as chewing. Advances in this area may reduce the overall abuse of prescription opioids and interrupt the progression from abuse by swallowing whole to oral administration involving product manipulation and other ROAs.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pain Management in Acute Musculoskeletal Injury

PURPOSE

We aimed to produce comprehensive guidelines and recommendations that can be utilized by orthopaedic practices as well as other specialties to improve the management of acute pain following musculoskeletal injury.

METHODS

A panel of 15 members with expertise in orthopaedic trauma, pain management, or both was convened to review the literature and develop recommendations on acute musculoskeletal pain management. The methods described by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group were applied to each recommendation. The guideline was submitted to the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) for review and was approved on October 16, 2018.

RESULTS

We present evidence-based best practice recommendations and pain medication recommendations with the hope that they can be utilized by orthopaedic practices as well as other specialties to improve the management of acute pain following musculoskeletal injury. Recommendations are presented regarding pain management, cognitive strategies, physical strategies, strategies for patients on long term opioids at presentation, and system implementation strategies. We recommend the use of multimodal analgesia, prescribing the lowest effective immediate-release opioid for the shortest period possible, and considering regional anesthesia. We also recommend connecting patients to psychosocial interventions as indicated and considering anxiety reduction strategies such as aromatherapy. Finally, we also recommend physical strategies including ice, elevation, and transcutaneous electrical stimulation. Prescribing for patients on long term opioids at presentation should be limited to one prescriber. Both pain and sedation should be assessed regularly for inpatients with short, validated tools. Finally, the group supports querying the relevant regional and state prescription drug monitoring program, development of clinical decision support, opioid education efforts for prescribers and patients, and implementing a department or organization pain medication prescribing strategy or policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Balancing comfort and patient safety following acute musculoskeletal injury is possible when utilizing a true multimodal approach including cognitive, physical, and pharmaceutical strategies. In this guideline, we attempt to provide practical, evidence-based guidance for clinicians in both the operative and non-operative settings to address acute pain from musculoskeletal injury. We also organized and graded the evidence to both support recommendations and identify gap areas for future research.

Impact of an Electronic Pain and Opioid Risk Assessment Program: Are There Improvements in Patient Encounters and Clinic Notes?

OBJECTIVE

A comprehensive electronic self-report assessment, called PainCAS^® (Clinical Assessment System), was developed and implemented in three clinics. PainCAS captures demographic information, pain assessment, quality-of-life variables, and contains validated, electronic versions of screeners for risk of aberrant opioid-related behaviors (the SOAPP and COMM). This investigation sought to determine the impact of PainCAS on documentation of pain and opioid risk evaluations. Exploratory hypotheses examined changes in the content of the patient-provider interaction and any impact on outcome.

METHODS

In study 1, chart reviews were conducted between pain patients who completed the electronic program (N = 89) and controls who represented standard of care (N = 120). In study 2, two groups of chronic pain patients (treatment-as-usual Control condition = 75, PainCAS Experimental condition = 72) were interviewed after completing their index clinic visit and completed mailed questionnaires 3 months later.

RESULTS

Results revealed significantly more key, pain-relevant chart elements documented in charts of patients who completed the PainCAS than those using a traditional paper questionnaire (Study 1; <0.001). In Study 2, the Experimental group reported more discussion about legal issues, substance use history, and medication safety compared with the Control group (p < 0.05). Satisfaction questionnaire responses supported provider and patient perceived benefit from using PainCAS. However, as expected, no differences were found between conditions on outcome measures of pain, mood, and function.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that use of the PainCAS electronic pain assessment improves documentation of chart elements in clinic notes and is associated with increased discussion of key, pain-relevant topics during the clinical visit.