Family Physician Perceptions of Their Role in Managing the Opioid Crisis

Effectiveness of primary care interventions in conjointly treating comorbid chronic pain and depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain and depression are highly comorbid, but the lack of consensus on the best treatment strategies puts patients at high risk of suboptimal care-coordination as well as health and social complications. Therefore, this study aims to quantitatively assesses how effective different primary care interventions have been in treating the comorbid state of chronic pain and depression. In particular, this study evaluates both short-term outcomes-based specifically on measures of chronic pain and depression during an intervention itself-and long-term outcomes or measures of pain and depression in the months after conclusion of the formal study intervention.

METHODS

This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with concurrent chronic pain and depression. Intensity and severity of pain and depression symptoms were the primary outcomes. The main inclusion criteria were RCTs that: (i) enrolled patients diagnosed with depression and chronic pain, (ii) occurred in primary care settings, (iii) reported baseline and post-intervention outcomes for chronic pain and depression, (iv) lasted at least 8 weeks, and (v) used clinically validated outcome measures. Risk of bias was appraised with the Risk of Bias 2 tool, and GRADE guidelines were used to evaluate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Of 692 screened citations, 7 multicomponent primary care interventions tested across 891 patients were included. Meta-analyses revealed significant improvements in depression at post-intervention (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI [0.17, 0.71], P = 0.0014) and follow-up (SMD = 0.41, 95% CI [0.01, 0.81], P = 0.0448). Non-significant effects were observed for chronic pain at post-intervention (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.61], P = 0.1287) and follow-up (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.3, 0.56], P = 0.5432).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the meta-analysis, primary care interventions largely yielded small to moderate positive effects for depressive symptoms and no significant effects on pain. In one study, stepped-care to be more effective in treatment of comorbid chronic pain and depression than other interventions both during the intervention and upon post-intervention follow-up. As such, depression appears more amenable to treatment than pain, but the number of published RCTs assessing both conditions is limited. More research is needed to further develop optimal treatment strategies.

Barriers and facilitators to opioid deprescribing among Advanced Nurse Practitioners: A qualitative interview study

AIM

To explore the experiences primary care Advanced Nurse Practitioners have had in relation to deprescribing opioids in chronic non-malignant pain.

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study.

METHODS

Primary care Advanced Nurse Practitioners were recruited from across the Northern Ireland GP Federations. Data collection for this study took place between April and June 2022. In total, 10 semi-structured online interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio and visually recorded, transcribed verbatim and interpreted using a thematic analysis framework. The COREQ criteria were used to guide the reporting of this study.

RESULTS

The Advanced Nurse Practitioners experienced several challenges associated with opioid deprescribing and the implementation of current chronic pain guidelines. The main barriers identified were difficulties engaging patients in deprescribing discussions, a lack of availability of supportive therapies and poor access to secondary care services. The barriers identified directly impacted on their ability to deliver best practice which resulted in a sense of professional powerlessness.

CONCLUSION

The experiences of the Advanced Nurse Practitioners demonstrate that opioid deprescribing in patients with chronic pain is challenging, and implementation of current chronic pain guidelines is difficult.

IMPACT

This study contributes to existing literature on the topic of reducing opioid prescribing and as far as the authors are aware, is the first study to examine the experiences of primary care advanced nurse practitioners in this context. These findings will be of interest to other primary care practitioners, and prescribers involved in the management of chronic non-malignant pain.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Experiences and Outcomes of Using e-Prescribing for Opioids: Rapid Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

e-Prescribing is designed to assist in facilitating safe and appropriate prescriptions for patients. Currently, it is unknown to what extent e-prescribing for opioids influences experiences and outcomes. To address this gap, a rapid scoping review was conducted.

OBJECTIVE

This rapid scoping review aims to (1) explore how e-prescribing has been used clinically; (2) examine the effects of e-prescribing on clinical outcomes, the patient or clinician experience, service delivery, and policy; and (3) identify current gaps in the present literature to inform future studies and recommendations.

METHODS

A rapid scoping review was conducted following the guidance of the JBI 2020 scoping review methodology and the World Health Organization guide to rapid reviews. A comprehensive literature search was completed by an expert librarian from inception until November 16, 2022. Three databases were electronically searched: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Scopus (Elsevier). The search criteria were as follows: (1) e-prescribing programs targeted to the use or misuse of opioids, including those that were complemented or accompanied by clinically focused initiatives, and (2) a primary research study of experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, qualitative, or mixed methods design. An additional criterion of an ambulatory component of e-prescribing (eg, e-prescribing occurred upon discharge from acute care) was added at the full-text stage. No language limitations or filters were applied. All articles were double screened by trained reviewers. Gray literature was manually searched by a single reviewer. Data were synthesized using a descriptive approach.

RESULTS

Upon completing screening, 34 articles met the inclusion criteria: 32 (94%) peer-reviewed studies and 2 (6%) gray literature documents (1 thesis study and 1 report). All 33 studies had a quantitative component, with most highlighting e-prescribing from acute care settings to community settings (n=12, 36%). Only 1 (3%) of the 34 articles provided evidence on e-prescribing in a primary care setting. Minimal prescriber, pharmacist, and clinical population characteristics were reported. The main outcomes identified were related to opioid prescribing rates, alerts (eg, adverse drug events and drug-drug interactions), the quantity and duration of opioid prescriptions, the adoption of e-prescribing technology, attitudes toward e-prescribing, and potential challenges with the implementation of e-prescribing into clinical practice. e-Prescribing, including key features such as alerts and dose order sets, may reduce prescribing errors.

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid scoping review highlights initial promising results with e-prescribing and opioid therapy management. It is important that future work explores the experience of prescribers, pharmacists, and patients using e-prescribing for opioid therapy management with an emphasis on prescribers in the community and primary care. Developing a common set of quality indicators for e-prescribing of opioids will help build a stronger evidence base. Understanding implementation considerations will be of importance as the technology is integrated into clinical practice and health systems.

Academic detailing to improve appropriate opioid prescribing: a mixed-methods process evaluation

BACKGROUND

Academic detailing, an educational outreach service for family physicians, was funded by the Ontario government to address gaps in opioid prescribing and pain management. We sought to evaluate the impact of academic detailing on opioid prescribing, and to understand how and why academic detailing may have influenced opioid prescribing.

METHODS

In this mixed-methods study, we collected quantitative and qualitative data concurrently from 2017 to 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We analyzed prescribing outcomes descriptively for a sample of participating physicians and compared them with a matched control group. We invited physicians to participate in qualitative interviews to discuss their experiences in academic detailing. Development and analysis of qualitative interviews was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. We triangulated qualitative and quantitative findings to understand the mechanisms that drove changes in opioid prescribing.

RESULTS

Physicians receiving academic detailing (n = 238) achieved a greater reduction in opioid prescribing than matched controls (n = 238). Seventeen physicians completed interviews and reported that academic detailing addressed barriers to pain care, including lack of confidence, difficult interactions with patients and prescribing and tapering decisions. Academic detailing reinforced knowledge about opioid prescribing and pain management. Discussion of complex patients and talking points to use during challenging conversations were described as key drivers of practice change.

INTERPRETATION

The findings of this real-world, mixed-methods evaluation explain how an academic detailing service addressed key barriers and enablers to limit high-risk opioid prescribing in primary care. This nuanced understanding will be used to inform, spread and scale academic detailing.

Educating Nursing Students About Chronic Pain Management and Opioids: A Research Study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals' knowledge of safe use of opioids for chronic pain management is critical in preventing opioid abuse and overdose. Undergraduate curricula of health professional schools, including undergraduate nursing programs, need to improve and adopt a comprehensive educational plan regarding this issue.

METHOD

This study implemented and assessed an educational module on undergraduate nursing students' knowledge and attitudes regarding prescription opioids.

RESULTS

The educational module improved nursing students' knowledge and attitudes. Students reflected positively on the module.

CONCLUSION

Undergraduate nursing students benefited from the educational module on prescription opioids and preferred to include a similar module in their undergraduate curricula.

A cross-sectional survey exploring clinician perceptions of a novel Medicaid back pain policy

OBJECTIVES

Oregon Medicaid (Oregon Health Plan, or OHP) implemented an innovative policy in 2016 that increased coverage of evidence-based non-pharmacologic therapies (NPT, including physical therapy, massage, chiropractic, and acupuncture) while restricting opioids, epidural steroid injections, and surgeries. The objective of this study was to compare the perspectives of clinicians who see back pain patients and can prescribe pharmacologic therapies and/or refer to NPTs and clinicians who directly provide NPT therapies affected by the policy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was administered to Oregon prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians between December 2019 and February 2020. The survey was completed by 107 prescribing clinicians and 83 NPT clinicians.

RESULTS

Prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians had only moderate levels of familiarity with core elements of the policy. Prescribing clinicians had higher levels of frustration caring for OHP patients with back pain than NPT clinicians (83 vs. 34%, p<0.001) and were less confident in their ability to provide effective care (73 vs. 85%, p = .025). Eighty-six percent of prescribing clinicians and 83% of NPT clinicians thought active NPT treatments were effective; 74 and 70% thought passive NPT treatments were effective. Forty percent of prescribing clinicians and 25% of NPT clinicians (p<0.001) thought medically-light therapies were effective, while 29% of prescribing clinicians and 10% of NPT clinicians thought medically-intensive treatments were effective (p=0.001). Prescribing clinicians thought increased access to NPTs improved outcomes, while opinions were less consistent on the impact of restricting opioid prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing clinicians and NPT clinicians had varying perspectives of a Medicaid coverage policy to increase evidence-based back pain care. Understanding these perspectives is important for contextualizing policy effectiveness.

Opioid deprescribing in patients with chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review of international guidelines

ABSTRACT

In response to the overuse of prescription opioid analgesics, clinical practice guidelines encourage opioid deprescribing (ie, dose reduction or cessation) in patients with chronic noncancer pain. Therefore, this study evaluated and compared international clinical guideline recommendations on opioid deprescribing in patients with chronic noncancer pain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (United Kingdom), and MAGICapp databases from inception to June 4, 2021, with no language or publication restrictions. In addition, we searched the National Guideline Clearinghouse and International Guideline Network databases from inception to December 2018. Two independent reviewers conducted the initial title and abstract screening. After discrepancies were resolved through discussion, 2 independent reviewers conducted the full-text screening of each potentially eligible reference. Four independent reviewers completed the prepiloted, standardized data extraction forms of each included guideline. Extracted information included bibliographical details; strength of recommendations; and the outcomes, such as when and how to deprescribe, managing withdrawal symptoms, additional support, outcome monitoring, and deprescribing with coprescription of sedatives. A narrative synthesis was used to present the results. This study found that clinical practice guidelines agree on when and how to deprescribe opioid analgesics but lack advice on managing a patient's withdrawal symptoms, outcome monitoring, and deprescribing with coprescription of sedatives. Quality assessment of the guidelines suggests that greater discussion on implementation and dissemination is needed.

A Scoping Review of Gaps Identified by Primary Care Providers in Caring for Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain

Introduction/Aim

Primary care providers (PCPs), who provide the bulk of care for patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), often report knowledge gaps, limited resources, and difficult patient encounters while managing chronic pain. This scoping review seeks to evaluate gaps identified by PCPs in providing care to patients with chronic pain.

Methods

The Arksey and O'Malley framework was used for this scoping review. A broad literature search was conducted for relevant articles on gaps in knowledge and skills of PCPs and in their health care environment for managing chronic pain, with multiple search term derivatives for concepts of interest. Articles from the initial search were screened for relevance, yielding 31 studies. Inductive and deductive thematic analysis was adopted.

Results

The studies included in this review reflected a variety of study designs, settings, and methods. However, consistent themes emerged with respect to gaps in knowledge and skills for assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and interprofessional roles in chronic pain, as well as broader systemic issues including attitudes toward CNCP. A general lack of confidence in tapering high dose or ineffective opioid regimes, professional isolation, challenges in managing patients with CNCP with complex needs, and limited access to pain specialists were reported by PCPs.

Discussion/Conclusions

This scoping review revealed common elements across the selected studies that will be useful in guiding creation of targeted supports for PCPs to manage CNCP. This review also yielded insights for pain clinicians at tertiary centers for supporting their PCP colleagues as well as systemic reforms required to support patients with CNCP.

"Opioids are opioids" - A phenomenographic analyses of physicians' understanding of what makes the initial prescription of opioids become long-term opioid therapy

OBJECTIVES

To explore prescribers' understanding of what makes initial prescription of opioids become long-term opioid therapy (opioids >90 days).

METHODS

A qualitative research design, phenomenography, was used for this study. Fifteen attending physicians working within primary, secondary and tertiary care in Sweden in the fields of general practice, rehab medicine, orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, or obstetrics and gynecology were purposively recruited consecutively until categorical saturation was reached. Semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. The transcripts were analyzed and categorized by two researchers. A third researcher checked for consistency between the data and the categories. An outcome space was constructed representing the logical relationship between the categories.

RESULTS

The analysis identified six categories: The addictive opioid, The deserving patient, The ignorant prescriber, The lost patient, The compassionate prescriber, and The exposed prescriber. The differences in conceptions among the categories were clarified through three main contributors related to opioid therapy: prescriber's characteristics, patient's characteristics, and the healthcare organization.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids were understood as being addictive with long-term use promoting a downward spiral of tolerance and withdrawal driving the pain, leading to continued prescription. Long-term opioid therapy could be justified for patients who improved in function, and who were perceived as trustworthy. Inadequate follow-up of patients, poor training in pain management and addiction medicine, personal attitudes and beliefs about opioids, a perceived professional obligation to treat patients with pain, and lack of collegial support, were factors understood to promote clinically unindicated long-term opioid therapy.

Healthcare professional behaviour: health impact, prevalence of evidence-based behaviours, correlates and interventions

Healthcare professional (HCP) behaviours are actions performed by individuals and teams for varying and often complex patient needs. However, gaps exist between evidence-informed care behaviours and the care provided. Implementation science seeks to develop generalizable principles and approaches to investigate and address care gaps, supporting HCP behaviour change while building a cumulative science. We highlight theory-informed approaches for defining HCP behaviour and investigating the prevalence of evidence-based care and known correlates and interventions to change professional practice. Behavioural sciences can be applied to develop implementation strategies to support HCP behaviour change and provide valid, reliable tools to evaluate these strategies. There are thousands of different behaviours performed by different HCPs across many contexts, requiring different implementation approaches. HCP behaviours can include activities related to promoting health and preventing illness, assessing and diagnosing illnesses, providing treatments, managing health conditions, managing the healthcare system and building therapeutic alliances. The key challenge is optimising behaviour change interventions that address barriers to and enablers of recommended practice. HCP behaviours may be determined by, but not limited to, Knowledge, Social influences, Intention, Emotions and Goals. Understanding HCP behaviour change is a critical to ensuring advances in health psychology are applied to maximize population health.

Finding Primary Care—Repurposing Physician Registration Data to Generate a Regionally Accurate List of Primary Care Clinics: Development and Validation of an Open-Source Algorithm

Background

Some Canadians have limited access to longitudinal primary care, despite its known advantages for population health. Current initiatives to transform primary care aim to increase access to team-based primary care clinics. However, many regions lack a reliable method to enumerate clinics, limiting estimates of clinical capacity and ongoing access gaps. A region-based complete clinic list is needed to effectively describe clinic characteristics and to compare primary care outcomes at the clinic level.

Objective

The objective of this study is to show how publicly available data sources, including the provincial physician license registry, can be used to generate a verifiable, region-wide list of primary care clinics in British Columbia, Canada, using a process named the Clinic List Algorithm (CLA).

Methods

The CLA has 10 steps: (1) collect data sets, (2) develop clinic inclusion and exclusion criteria, (3) process data sets, (4) consolidate data sets, (5) transform from list of physicians to initial list of clinics, (6) add additional metadata, (7) create working lists, (8) verify working lists, (9) consolidate working lists, and (10) adjust processing steps based on learnings.

Results

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Registry contained 13,726 physicians, at 2915 unique addresses, 6942 (50.58%) of whom were family physicians (FPs) licensed to practice in British Columbia. The CLA identified 1239 addresses where primary care was delivered by 4262 (61.39%) FPs. Of the included addresses, 84.50% (n=1047) were in urban locations, and there was a median of 2 (IQR 2-4, range 1-23) FPs at each unique address.

Conclusions

The CLA provides a region-wide description of primary care clinics that improves on simple counts of primary care providers or self-report lists. It identifies the number and location of primary care clinics and excludes primary care providers who are likely not providing community-based primary care. Such information may be useful for estimates of capacity of primary care, as well as for policy planning and research in regions engaged in primary care evaluation or transformation.

Barriers, facilitators, and resources to opioid deprescribing in primary care: experiences of general practitioners in Australia

ABSTRACT

Deprescribing is the systematic process of discontinuing drugs when harms outweigh the benefits. We conducted semistructured telephone interviews with 22 general practitioners (GPs) who had prescribed or deprescribed opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain within the past 6 months to investigate the barriers and facilitators to deprescribing opioid analgesics in patients with chronic noncancer pain. We also explored GPs' perspectives on the available resources to assist them with opioid deprescribing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then coded using an iterative process until data saturation reached. The thematic analysis process identified themes, first as concepts, and then refined to overarching themes after the merging of similar subthemes. Themes exploring barriers to deprescribing highlighted the difficulties GPs face while considering patient factors and varying prescribing practices within the confines of the health system. Patient motivation and doctor-patient rapport were central factors to facilitate deprescribing and GPs considered the most important deprescribing resource to be a multidisciplinary network of clinicians to support themselves and their patients. Therefore, although GPs emphasised the importance of deprescribing opioid analgesics, they also expressed many barriers relating to managing complex pain conditions, patient factors, and varying prescribing practices between clinicians. Some of these barriers could be mitigated by GPs having time and resources to educate and build rapport with their patients. This suggests the need for further development of multimodal resources and improved support through the public health system to enable GPs to prioritise patient-centred care.

General practitioners' attitudes towards opioids for non-cancer pain: a qualitative systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Worldwide the use of opioids, both doctor-prescribed and illicit, has increased. In most countries, opioids are first prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). Identifying factors that influence GPs' opioid prescription decision-making may help reduce opioid misuse and overuse. We performed a systematic review to gain insight into GP attitudes towards opioid prescription and to identify possible solutions to promote changes in the field of primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of qualitative studies reporting GPs' attitudes towards opioid use in non-cancer pain management.

METHODS

We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane, PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers selected studies based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Study quality was evaluated with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, and their results were analysed using thematic analysis. Quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research approach.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies. Four themes were established using thematic analyses: (1) GPs caught in the middle of 'the opioid crisis'; (2) Are opioids always bad? (3) GPs' weighing scale, taking patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors into account; and (4) GPs' sense of powerlessness-lack of alternatives, support by specialists and lack of time in justifying non-prescriptions.

CONCLUSION

GP attitudes towards opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain are subject to several GP-related, patient-related and therapeutic relationship-related factors. Raising GP and patient awareness on the inefficacy of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain management and providing non-opioid alternatives to treat chronic pain might help to promote opioid reduction in primary care. More research is needed to develop practical guidelines on appropriate opioid prescribing, tapering off opioid use and adopting effective communication strategies.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020194561.Cite Now.

Barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Background

Understanding barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioids will enable the development of tailored interventions to improve both practices.

Objective

To perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and enablers to monitoring ongoing appropriateness and deprescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Methods

We included English-language qualitative studies that explored healthcare professional (HCP), patient, carer and the general public’s perceptions regarding monitoring and deprescribing opioids for CNCP. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO from inception to August 2020. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research). We used an inductive approach to synthesis of qualitative data and mapped identified themes to TDF domains.

Results

From 6948 records identified we included 21 studies, involving 209 HCPs and 330 patients. No studies involved carers or the general public. Five barrier themes were identified: limited alternatives to opioids, management of pain is top priority, patient understanding, expectations and experiences, prescriber pressures, and reluctance to change. Four enabler themes were identified: negative effects of opioids and benefits of deprescribing, clear communication and expectations for deprescribing, support for patients, and support for prescribers. 16 barrier and 12 enabler subthemes were identified; most were graded as high (n=15) or moderate (n=9) confidence. The TDF domains ‘beliefs about consequences’, ‘environmental context and resources’, ‘social influences’ and ‘emotion’ were salient for patients and HCPs. The domains ‘skills’ and ‘beliefs about capabilities’ were more salient for HCPs.

Conclusion

Future implementation interventions aimed at monitoring and deprescribing opioids should target the patient and HCP barriers and enablers identified in this synthesis.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42019140784.

Barriers to Working with Patients Who Misuse Opioids and Physician Burnout: Implications for Medical Education

BACKGROUND

Physicians are on the front lines of the U.S. opioid epidemic, providing care in multiple treatment settings. Very little is known, however, about whether this experience has contributed to physician burnout. This information is critical for guiding efforts to expand the relatively low level of training on opioid misuse currently available in medical education.

METHODS

We surveyed 408 board-certified physicians practicing in Ohio about their experiences working with patients who misuse opioids. We also collected quantitative measures of physicians' burnout and their level of contact with this patient population. We coded and analyzed open-ended responses and calculated a partial correlation between contact and burnout, controlling for relevant factors.

RESULTS

Physicians experienced three primary barriers when working with patients who misuse opioids: inadequate knowledge and training, limited external resources and partnerships in their communities, and an incomplete context for understanding problematic patient behaviors. 70% of physicians experienced negative emotions when working with this patient population and 19% mentioned experiencing burnout specifically. Contact with patients who misuse opioids was significantly and positively associated with burnout scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings underscore the need for medical educators to take a proactive approach to equipping physicians with the knowledge, skills, and resources needed to effectively work with patients who misuse opioids.

Barriers and facilitators encountered by family physicians prescribing opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Harms caused by prescription opioid analgesics (POAs) have been identified as a major international public health concern. Recent statistics show rising numbers of opioid-related deaths across Canada. However, Canadian family physicians appear to have inadequate resources to safely and effectively prescribe opioid analgesics to treat chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP).

METHODS

We completed a qualitative study of the barriers and facilitators to safe and effective prescribing of opioid analgesics for CNCP through semi-structured interviews with eight family physicians in Nova Scotia. Thematic analysis was used to identify the barriers and facilitators.

RESULTS

Family physicians identified challenges in prescribing opioid analgesics for CNCP: the complexity of CNCP management, addictions risks and prescribing tools, physician training, the physician-patient relationship, prescription monitoring and control, and systemic factors.

CONCLUSION

Family physicians described themselves as inadequately supported in their prescribing of opioid analgesics for CNCP and could benefit from an integrated and coordinated approach to prescriber support.

Quality improvement initiative for pain management practices in primary care

In the context of both chronic pain and opioid crises, this large-system quality improvement project sought to increase use of evidence-based multimodal pain management strategies. Primary care providers (PCPs) in internal medicine and family medicine identified as above-median prescribers of 30-day opioid supplies were selected for intervention. PCPs received individualized email letters showing their opioid prescribing patterns relative to peers and urging them to view an internal pain/opioid educational video and related system guidelines. The median number of patients receiving 30-day opioid supplies from our target PCPs decreased over a 24-month period. For cohort patients identified at baseline and remaining in treatment over time, those receiving opioid prescriptions decreased, and those receiving nonopioid prescriptions increased. Percentages of PCPs prescribing nonopioids for cohort patients increased over the first year and nonpharmacologic referrals increased in range. Our evidence suggests that PCPs who are higher opioid prescribers will change their practices voluntarily when given feedback about their opioid prescribing patterns relative to their peers, as well as education regarding evidence-based pain management and opioid prescribing.