'First Do No Harm': physician discretion, racial disparities and opioid treatment agreements

Clinician Perspectives on Opioid Treatment Agreements: A Qualitative Analysis of Focus Groups

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic pain face significant barriers in finding clinicians to manage long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). For patients on LTOT, it is increasingly common to have them sign opioid treatment agreements (OTAs). OTAs enumerate the risks of opioids, as informed consent documents would, but also the requirements that patients must meet to receive LTOT. While there has been an ongoing scholarly discussion about the practical and ethical implications of OTA use in the abstract, little is known about how clinicians use them and if OTAs themselves modify clinician prescribing practices.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how clinicians use OTAs and the potential impacts of OTAs on opioid prescribing.

DESIGN

We conducted qualitative analysis of four focus groups of clinicians from a large Midwestern academic medical center. Groups were organized according to self-identified prescribing patterns: two groups for clinicians who identified as prescribers of LTOT, and two who did not.

PARTICIPANTS

17 clinicians from General Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, and Palliative Care were recruited using purposive, convenience sampling.

APPROACH

Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using reflexive thematic analysis by a multidisciplinary team.

KEY RESULTS

Our analysis identified three main themes: (1) OTAs did not influence clinicians' decisions whether to use LTOT generally but did shape clinical decision-making for individual patients; (2) clinicians feel OTAs intensify the power they have over patients, though this was not uniformly judged as harmful; (3) there is a potential misalignment between the intended purposes of OTAs and their implementation.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals a complicated relationship between OTAs and access to pain management. While OTAs seem not to impact the clinicians' decisions about whether to use LTOT generally, they do sometimes influence prescribing decisions for individual patients. Clinicians shared complex views about OTAs' purposes, which shows the need for more clarity about how OTAs could be used to promote shared decision-making, joint accountability, informed consent, and patient education.

Assessment of pain management among nurses using the knowledge and attitude survey regarding pain tool

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of pain among cancer patients vary in the cancer trajectory and nurses will encounter patients with cancers who may experience pain. Nurses routinely need to assess and manage pain to deliver quality care.

AIM AND METHOD

The study aims to understand the knowledge and attitudes of nurses towards pain management using the self-administered questionnaire-the Knowledge and Attitude Survey Regarding Pain (KASRP).

FINDINGS

Some 80 nurses participated in the study with an average overall KASRP score of 56%. Areas that were poorly answered are related to the knowledge about opioids, assessment of pain and management of pain in different scenarios. Factors like nurse-patient relationships and being unfamiliar with opioids may affect the knowledge and attitude of nurses towards pain management.

CONCLUSION

Curriculum on pain management needs to consider strategies to help nurses translate knowledge to bedside clinical teaching. It needs to include facts of pain management, and topics regarding self-awareness and clarifying misconceptions.

Health disparities in ethnic and racial minority populations with pain and opioid use disorder

Healthcare providers are not prepared to address health disparities among ethnic and racial minority populations with either persistent and chronic pain or substance use disorder (SUD). Recognizing biases from policies to provide pain management and treatment for SUD in our healthcare systems, from our individual state laws and federal guidelines, is necessary. Biases are embedded in the screening and treatment of patients with chronic pain through the use of screening tools, opioid treatment agreements, and prescription drug monitoring programs. Additionally, the punitive treatment of people of ethnic and racial minority populations who experience persistent and chronic pain, opioid use disorders, or other SUDs needs to be redirected to facilitate solutions rooted in equity.

Telehealth for opioid use disorder treatment in low-barrier clinic settings: an exploration of clinician and staff perspectives

BACKGROUND

The majority of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) face access barriers to evidence-based treatment, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the United States (US) opioid overdose crisis. However, the pandemic has also ushered in rapid transitions to telehealth in the USA, including for substance use disorder treatment with buprenorphine. These changes have the potential to mitigate barriers to care or to exacerbate pre-existing treatment inequities. The objective of this study was to qualitatively explore Philadelphia-based low-barrier, harm-reduction oriented, opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment provider perspectives about and experiences with telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess their desire to offer telehealth to patients at their programs in the future.

METHODS

We interviewed 22 OUD treatment prescribers and staff working outpatient programs offering OUD treatment with buprenorphine in Philadelphia during July and August 2020. All participants worked at low-barrier treatment programs that provide buprenorphine using a harm reduction-oriented approach and without mandating counseling or other requirements as a condition of treatment. We analyzed the data using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Our analysis yielded three themes: 1/ Easier access for some: telehealth facilitates care for many patients who have difficulty attending in-person appointments due to logistical and psychological barriers; 2/ A layered digital divide: engagement with telehealth can be seriously limited by patients' access to and comfort with technology; and 3/ Clinician control: despite some clinic staff beliefs that patients should have the freedom to choose their treatment modality, patients' access to treatment via telehealth may hinge on clinician perceptions of patient "stability" rather than patient preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth may address many access issues, however, barriers to implementation remain, including patient ability and desire to attend healthcare appointments virtually. In addition, the potential for telehealth models to extend OUD care to patients currently underserved by in-person models may partially depend on clinician comfort treating patients deemed "unstable" via this modality. The ability of telehealth to expand access to OUD care for individuals who have previously struggled to engage with in-person care will likely be limited if these patients are not given the opportunity to receive treatment via telehealth.