Pain and Addiction in Specialty and Primary Care: The Bookends of a Crisis

The perpetual evidence-practice gap: addressing ongoing barriers to chronic pain management in primary care in three steps

Background

Most management of chronic pain, a serious illness affecting the physical and psychological wellbeing of millions, occurs in primary care settings. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) attempt to provide evidence-based practices to treat chronic pain. However, there continues to be a gap between the care people receive and the evidence. The objectives for this study were to (1) explore determinants of evidence-based chronic pain management and (2) develop a novel approach to using implementation science to address the evidence-practice gap.

Method

A convenience sample of twenty-one Pennsylvania PCPs participated in one-time semi-structured telephone interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and both deductive and inductive approaches were used during analysis. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to inform our analysis and findings.

Results

We identified determinants of evidence-based chronic pain management across the CFIR domains of Intervention Characteristics, Characteristics of Individuals, and the Outer Setting and reported implementation strategies. Based on identified themes, we developed a three-step process to support the ongoing and pragmatic implementation of evidence-based chronic pain management in primary care settings.

Conclusions

Previous efforts exist to integrate implementation science into chronic pain management; yet a gap persists. Implementation approaches should prioritize the needs of people living with chronic pain and their families. Further, future approaches or strategies used should build on the current three-step model to include the fourth step of tailoring existing implementation strategies to the specific needs of chronic pain in the clinical context.

Exploring Internal Medicine Interns' Educational Experiences on Opioid Addiction: A Narrative Analysis

Increased efforts to educate physicians on addiction are crucial based on widespread addiction rates and the ongoing opioid crisis. Physicians in the United States hesitate to adopt medication-assisted treatment (MAT) due to a lack of addiction education. For this study, we used a narrative framework to understand how internal medicine interns (first-year residents) recount their educational experiences on addiction during their medical school education and early residency. In using a sensemaking function, our results revealed four types of narratives: dearth, futility, priority, and impact. We found that the narratives were interrelated and indicated that interns understood addiction as a disease yet felt unprepared to treat it. We also discovered that interns did not fully appreciate the nuances of addiction. Their attempts to engage patients in substance recovery or reduction were often unsuccessful, leaving them feeling disappointed. Interns had mixed feelings when working with addiction-related issues as patients' addiction was rarely ever addressed. Interns also encountered "eye-opening" events leaving them astonished. Thus, shaping their views on the opioid crisis, and by extension, addiction. Increasing medical students' and residents' competency through practical education and training may improve physician comfort and confidence leading to the adoption of opioid addiction treatment such as MAT, potentially reducing the opioid epidemic.

Assessing reasons for decreased primary care access for individuals on prescribed opioids: an audit study

ABSTRACT

Many primary care clinics are resistant to accept new patients taking prescription opioids for chronic pain. It is unclear how much of this practice is specific to individuals who may be perceived to have aberrant opioid use. This study sought to determine whether clinics are more or less willing to accept and prescribe opioids to patients depending on whether their history is more or less suggestive of aberrant opioid use by conducting an audit survey of primary care clinics in 9 states from May to July 2019. Simulated patients taking opioids for chronic pain called each clinic twice, giving one of 2 scenarios for needing a new provider: their previous physician had either (1) retired or (2) stopped prescribing opioids for unspecified reasons. Clinic willingness to continue prescribing opioids and accept the patient for general primary care were assessed. Of 452 clinics responding to both scenarios (904 calls), 193 (43%) said their providers would not prescribe opioids in either scenario, 146 (32%) said their providers might prescribe in both, and 113 (25%) responded differently to each scenario. Clinics responding differently had greater odds (odds ratio = 1.83 confidence interval [1.23-2.76]) of willingness to prescribe when the previous doctor retired than when the doctor had stopped prescribing. These findings suggest that primary care access is limited for patients taking opioids for chronic pain, and differentially further reduced for patients whose histories are suggestive of aberrant use. This denial of care could lead to unintended harms such as worsened pain or conversion to illicit substances.

Psychiatric comorbidity and order of condition onset among patients seeking treatment for chronic pain and opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

The study objective was to compare psychiatric comorbidity among patients seeking treatment for chronic pain and opioid use disorder (OUD) by order of condition onset (i.e., "Pain First," "OUD First," "Same Time").

METHODS

Data from 170 patients entering two clinical trials of treatments for current comorbid chronic pain and OUD conducted between March 2009 and July 2013 were compared by order of condition onset. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders and the Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (Axis II) were performed by doctoral-level providers using a standardized training protocol. Age of onset group differences on specific diagnostic variables were examined using multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

Fifty-two percent were in the "Pain First" group (n = 89), 35 % in the "OUD First" group (n = 59), and 13 % in the "Same Time" group (n = 22). Compared with the Pain First group, the Same Time group was less likely to report heroin (vs. prescription opioids) as the primary drug used (OR = 0.20, 95 % CI = 0.06-0.72) or meet criteria for an Axis II disorder (OR = 0.24, 95 % CI = 0.07-0.83). Compared with the Pain First group, the OUD First group was more likely to meet criteria for a current nonopioid substance use disorder (OR = 3.20, 95 % CI = 1.22-8.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings regarding differences in psychiatric comorbidity associated with order of condition onset indicate that varying pathways may exist for the emergence of chronic pain and OUD; further research should investigate potential treatment implications.

Confronting challenges to opioid risk mitigation in the U.S. health system: Recommendations from a panel of national experts

BACKGROUND

Amid the ongoing U.S. opioid crisis, achieving safe and effective chronic pain management while reducing opioid-related morbidity and mortality is likely to require multi-level efforts across health systems, including the Military Health System (MHS), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and civilian sectors.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a series of qualitative panel discussions with national experts to identify core challenges and elicit recommendations toward improving the safety of opioid prescribing in the U.S.

DESIGN

We invited national experts to participate in qualitative panel discussions regarding challenges in opioid risk mitigation and how best to support providers in delivery of safe and effective opioid prescribing across MHS, VA, and civilian health systems.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighteen experts representing primary care, emergency medicine, psychology, pharmacy, and public health/policy participated.

APPROACH

Six qualitative panel discussions were conducted via teleconference with experts. Transcripts were coded using team-based qualitative content analysis to identify key challenges and recommendations in opioid risk mitigation.

KEY RESULTS

Panelists provided insight into challenges across multiple levels of the U.S. health system, including the technical complexity of treating chronic pain, the fraught national climate around opioids, the need to integrate surveillance data across a fragmented U.S. health system, a lack of access to non-pharmacological options for chronic pain care, and difficulties in provider and patient communication. Participating experts identified recommendations for multi-level change efforts spanning policy, research, education, and the organization of healthcare delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing opioid risk while ensuring safe and effective pain management, according to participating experts, is likely to require multi-level efforts spanning military, veteran, and civilian health systems. Efforts to implement risk mitigation strategies at the patient level should be accompanied by efforts to increase education for patients and providers, increase access to non-pharmacological pain care, and support use of existing clinical decision support, including state-level prescription drug monitoring programs.

Physician Autonomy and the Opioid Crisis

The scope and severity of the opioid epidemic in the United States has prompted significant legislative intrusion into the patient-physician relationship. These proscriptive regulatory regimes mirror earlier legislation in other politically-charged domains like abortion and gun regulation. We draw on lessons from those contexts to argue that states should consider integrating their responses to the epidemic with existing medical regulatory structures, making physicians partners rather than adversaries in addressing this public health crisis.

The Opioid Crisis in Black Communities

While much of the social and political attention surrounding the nationwide opioid epidemic has focused on the dramatic increase in overdose deaths among white, middle-class, suburban and rural users, the impact of the epidemic in Black communities has largely been unrecognized. Though rates of opioid use at the national scale are higher for whites than they are for Blacks, rates of increase in opioid deaths have been rising more steeply among Blacks (43%) than whites (22%) over the last five years. Moreover, the rate of opioid overdose deaths among Blacks already exceeds that of whites in several states. The lack of discussion of Black overdose deaths in the national opioid discourse further marginalizes Black people, and is highly consistent with a history of framing the addictions of people of color as deserving of criminal punishment, rather than worthy of medical treatment. This article argues that, because racial inequalities are embedded in American popular and political cultures as well as in medicine, the federal and state governments should develop more culturally targeted programs to benefit Black communities in the opioid crisis. Such programs include the use of faith-based organizations to deliver substance use prevention and treatment services, the inclusion of racial impact assessments in the implementation of drug policy proposals, and the formal consideration of Black people's interaction with the criminal justice system in designing treatment options.

Civil Litigation and the Opioid Epidemic: The Role of Courts in a National Health Crisis

The devastating impact of the national opioid epidemic has given rise to hundreds of lawsuits. This article details the extremely broad range of legal claims, compares the opioid cases to other public health litigation efforts, including tobacco, and describes the special mechanism - a multidistrict litigation - through which more than 700 opioid-related cases have been consolidated thus far, with settlement almost certain to follow.

State Responses to the Opioid Crisis

This paper focuses on the most common state policy responses to the opioid crisis, dividing them into six broad categories. Within each category we highlight the rationale behind the group of policies within it, discuss the details and support for individual policies, and explore the research base behind them. The objective is to better understand the most prevalent state responses to the opioid crisis.