Are x-waiver trainings enough? Facilitators and barriers to buprenorphine prescribing after x-waiver trainings.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, an x-waiver credential is necessary to prescribe buprenorphine medication treatment for opioid use disorder (B-MOUD). Historically, this process has required certified training, which could be a barrier to obtaining an x-waiver and subsequently prescribing. To address this barrier, the US recently removed the training requirement for some clinicians. We sought to determine if clinicians who attended x-waiver training went on to obtain an x-waiver and prescribe B-MOUD, and to examine what facilitated or impeded B-MOUD prescribing. METHODS: In September 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, electronic survey of attendees of 15 in-person x-waiver pieces of training from June 2018 to January 2020 within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Of the attendees (n = 321), we surveyed current VHA clinicians who recalled taking the training. The survey assessed whether clinicians obtained the x-waiver, had prescribed B-MOUD, and barriers or facilitators that influenced B-MOUD prescribing. RESULTS: Of 251 eligible participants, 62 (24.7%) responded to the survey, including 27 (43.5%) physicians, 16 (25.8%) advanced practice clinicians, and 12 (19.4%) pharmacists. Of the 43 clinicians who could prescribe, 29 (67.4%) had obtained their x-waiver and 16 (37.2%) had reported prescribing B-MOUD. Prominent barriers to prescribing B-MOUD included a lack of supporting clinical staff and competing demands on time. The primary facilitator to prescribing was leadership support. CONCLUSION AND SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: Nine months after x-waiver training, two-thirds of clinicians with prescribing credentials had obtained their x-waiver and one-third were prescribing B-MOUD. Removing the x-waiver training may not have the intended policy effect as other barriers to B-MOUD prescribing persist.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Multimodal Chronic Pain Care for Veterans: A National Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain is more common among veterans than among the general population. Expert guidelines recommend multimodal chronic pain care. However, there is substantial variation in the availability and utilization of treatment modalities in the Veterans Health Administration. We explored health care providers' and administrators' perspectives on the barriers to and facilitators of multimodal chronic pain care in the Veterans Health Administration to understand variation in the use of multimodal pain treatment modalities. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with health care providers and administrators at a national sample of Veterans Health Administration facilities that were classified as either early or late adopters of multimodal chronic pain care according to their utilization of nine pain-related treatments. Interviews were conducted by telephone, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and analyzed through the use of team-based inductive and deductive content analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 49 participants from 25 facilities from April through September of 2017. We identified three themes. First, the Veterans Health Administration's integrated health care system is both an asset and a challenge for multimodal chronic pain care. Second, participants discussed a temporal shift from managing chronic pain with opioids to multimodal treatment. Third, primary care teams face competing pressures from expert guidelines, facility leadership, and patients. Early- and late-adopting sites differed in perceived resource availability. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers often perceive inadequate support and resources to provide multimodal chronic pain management. Efforts to improve chronic pain management should address both organizational and patient-level challenges, including primary care provider panel sizes, accessibility of training for primary care teams, leadership support for multimodal pain care, and availability of multidisciplinary pain management resources.

Association Between Opioid Dose Reduction Against Patients' Wishes and Change in Pain Severity.

BACKGROUND: There is inadequate evidence of long-term benefit from opioid medications for chronic pain and substantial evidence of potential harms. For patients, dose reduction may be beneficial when implemented voluntarily and supported by a multidisciplinary team but experts have advised against involuntary opioid reduction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of self-reported involuntary opioid reduction and to examine whether involuntary opioid reduction is associated with changes in pain severity. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care patients treated with long-term opioid therapy in the Veterans Health Administration (N = 290). MAIN MEASURES: The primary exposure was self-reported past year involuntary opioid reduction. The primary outcome was the three-item PEG scale, which measures past-week average pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life and general activity. KEY RESULTS: Past year opioid reduction or discontinuation was reported by 63% (184/290). Similar numbers reported involuntary (88/290) and voluntary (96/290) opioid reduction. At baseline, there were no significant differences in pain severity between the groups (mean PEG, 7.08 vs. 6.73 vs. 7.07 for past year involuntary opioid reduction, past year voluntary opioid reduction, and no past year opioid reduction, respectively; P = 0.32). For the primary outcome of change in pain severity from baseline to 18 months, there were no significant differences between groups (mean PEG change, - 0.05 vs. - 0.44 vs. - 0.23 for past year involuntary opioid reduction, past year voluntary opioid reduction, and no past year opioid reduction, respectively; P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported past year involuntary opioid reduction was common among a national sample of veterans treated with long-term opioid therapy. Opioid dose reduction, whether involuntary or voluntary, was not associated with change in pain severity. Future studies should examine involuntary opioid reduction in different populations and trends over time and explore further patient- and provider-level factors that may impact patient experience and outcomes during opioid reduction.

Implementation and Policy Recommendations from the VHA State-of-the-Art Conference on Strategies to Improve Opioid Safety.

Evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, the prevention of opioid overdose and other opioid-related harms, and safe and effective pain management are priorities for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The VHA Office of Health Services Research and Development hosted a State-of-the-Art Conference on "Effective Management of Pain and Addiction: Strategies to Improve Opioid Safety" on September 10-11, 2019. This conference convened a multidisciplinary group to discuss and achieve consensus on a research agenda and on implementation and policy recommendations to improve opioid safety for Veterans. Participants were organized into three workgroups: (1) managing opioid use disorder; (2) Long-term opioid therapy and opioid tapering; (3) managing co-occurring pain and substance use disorder. Here we summarize the implementation and policy recommendations of each workgroup and highlight important cross-cutting issues related to telehealth, care coordination, and stepped care model implementation.

Stakeholder Engagement in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Emphasizing Relationships to Improve Pain Management Delivery and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The NIH-DOD-VA Pain Management Collaboratory (PMC) supports 11 pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) on nonpharmacological approaches to management of pain and co-occurring conditions in U.S. military and veteran health organizations. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group is supported by a separately funded Coordinating Center and was formed with the goal of developing respectful and productive partnerships that will maximize the ability to generate trustworthy, internally valid findings directly relevant to veterans and military service members with pain, front-line primary care clinicians and health care teams, and health system leaders. The Stakeholder Engagement Work Group provides a forum to promote success of the PCTs in which principal investigators and/or their designees discuss various stakeholder engagement strategies, address challenges, and share experiences. Herein, we communicate features of meaningful stakeholder engagement in the design and implementation of pain management pragmatic trials, across the PMC. DESIGN: Our collective experiences suggest that an optimal stakeholder-engaged research project involves understanding the following: i) Who are research stakeholders in PMC trials? ii) How do investigators ensure that stakeholders represent the interests of a study's target treatment population, including individuals from underrepresented groups?, and iii) How can sustained stakeholder relationships help overcome implementation challenges over the course of a PCT? SUMMARY: Our experiences outline the role of stakeholders in pain research and may inform future pragmatic trial researchers regarding methods to engage stakeholders effectively.

Whole Health Options and Pain Education (wHOPE): A Pragmatic Trial Comparing Whole Health Team vs Primary Care Group Education to Promote Nonpharmacological Strategies to Improve Pain, Functioning, and Quality of Life in Veterans-Rationale, Methods, and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: The Whole Health model of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) emphasizes holistic self-care and multimodal approaches to improve pain, functioning, and quality of life. wHOPE (Whole Health Options and Pain Education) seeks to be the first multisite pragmatic trial to establish evidence for the VA Whole Health model for chronic pain care. DESIGN: wHOPE is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing a Whole Health Team (WHT) approach to Primary Care Group Education (PC-GE); both will be compared to Usual VA Primary Care (UPC). The WHT consists of a medical provider, a complementary and integrative health (CIH) provider, and a Whole Health coach, who collaborate with VA patients to create a Personalized Health Plan emphasizing CIH approaches to chronic pain management. The active comparator, PC-GE, is adapted group cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain. The first aim is to test whether the WHT approach is superior to PC-GE and whether both are superior to UPC in decreasing pain interference in functioning in 750 veterans with moderate to severe chronic pain (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include changes in pain severity, quality of life, mental health symptoms, and use of nonpharmacological and pharmacological therapies for pain. Outcomes will be collected from the VA electronic health record and patient-reported data over 12 months of follow-up. Aim 2 consists of an implementation-focused process evaluation and budget impact analysis. SUMMARY: This trial is part of the Pain Management Collaboratory, which seeks to create national-level infrastructure to support evidence-based nonpharmacological pain management approaches for veterans and military service personnel.

Challenges with Implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Opioid Guideline: A Consensus Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: A national crisis of opioid-related morbidity, mortality, and misuse has led to initiatives to address the appropriate role of opioids to treat pain. Deployment of a guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce the risks of opioid therapy has raised substantial clinical and public policy challenges. The agency anticipated implementation challenges and committed to reevaluating the guideline for intended and unintended effects on clinician and patient outcomes. OBSERVATIONS: A multidisciplinary expert panel met to review the influence of the core recommendations of the guideline on pain management practices, principally regarding the estimated 5 to 8 million Americans with chronic pain currently on opioids. The panel identified implementation challenges, including application of dosage ceilings and prescription duration guidance, failure to appreciate the importance of patient involvement in decisions to taper or discontinue opioids, barriers to diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and impeded access to recommended comprehensive, multimodal pain care. Furthermore, policy-making and regulatory bodies may misapply guideline recommendations without flexibility and, sometimes, without full awareness of what the guideline contains. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The panel largely supported the guideline, endorsing its focal points of safety and comprehensive assessment and monitoring. To mitigate clinical and policy challenges identified with implementing the guideline, the panel discussed areas where viewpoints diverged and arrived at consensus proposals. The target audience includes the leaders and institutions that create policy and influence guideline implementation to include regulatory agencies, legislators, public and private payers, and health care systems.

Association Between Facility-Level Utilization of Non-pharmacologic Chronic Pain Treatment and Subsequent Initiation of Long-Term Opioid Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Expert guidelines recommend non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications for chronic pain and recommend against initiating long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). OBJECTIVE: We examined whether veterans with incident chronic pain receiving care at facilities with greater utilization of non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications are less likely to initiate LTOT. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Veterans receiving primary care from a Veterans Health Administration facility with incident chronic pain between 1/1/2010 and 12/31/2015 based on either of 2 criteria: (1) persistent moderate-to-severe patient-reported pain and (2) diagnoses "likely to represent" chronic pain. MAIN MEASURES: The independent variable was facility-level utilization of pain-related treatment modalities (non-pharmacologic, non-opioid medications, LTOT) in the prior calendar year. The dependent variable was patient-level initiation of LTOT (≥ 90 days within 365 days) in the subsequent year, adjusting for patient characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Among 1,094,569 veterans with incident chronic pain from 2010 to 2015, there was wide facility-level variation in utilization of 10 pain-related treatment modalities, including initiation of LTOT (median, 16%; range, 5-32%). Veterans receiving care at facilities with greater utilization of non-pharmacologic treatments were less likely to initiate LTOT in the year following incident chronic pain. Conversely, veterans receiving care at facilities with greater non-opioid and opioid medication utilization were more likely to initiate LTOT; this association was strongest for past year facility-level LTOT initiation (adjusted rate ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 2.06-2.15, top vs. bottom quartile of facility-level LTOT initiation in prior calendar year). CONCLUSIONS: Facility-level utilization patterns of non-pharmacologic, non-opioid, and opioid treatments for chronic pain are associated with subsequent patient-level initiation of LTOT among veterans with incident chronic pain. Further studies should seek to understand facility-level variation in chronic pain care and to identify facility-level utilization patterns that are associated with improved patient outcomes.

Pain Management for Primary Care Providers: A Narrative Review of High-Impact Studies, 2014-2016.

Objective: This manuscript reviews high-impact, peer-reviewed studies published from January 2014 to March 2016 that are relevant to pain management in primary care. Given the recent release of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain" emphasizing the primacy of nonopioid treatment, we focused our review on nonopioid pain management. Design: Narrative review of peer-reviewed literature. Methods: We searched three article summary services and queried expert contacts for high-impact, English-language studies related to the management of pain in adults in primary care. All authors reviewed 142 study titles to arrive at group consensus on article content domains. Within article domains, individual authors selected studies approved by the larger group according to their impact on primary care clinical practice, policy, and research, as well as quality of the study methods. Through iterative discussion, 12 articles were selected for detailed review, discussion, and presentation in this narrative review. Results: We present key articles addressing each of six domains of pain management: pharmacotherapy for acute pain; interventional treatments; medical cannabis; complementary and integrative medicine; care management in chronic pain; and prevention. Within each section, we conclude with implications for pain management in primary care. Conclusions: There is growing evidence for multiple nonopioid treatment modalities available to clinicians for the management of pain in primary care. The dissemination and implementation of these studies, including innovative care management interventions, warrant additional study and support from clinicians, educators, and policy-makers.

"Those Conversations in My Experience Don't Go Well": A Qualitative Study of Primary Care Provider Experiences Tapering Long-term Opioid Medications.

Objective: Given the risks of long-term opioid therapy, patients may benefit from tapering these medications. There is little evidence to guide providers' approach to this process. We explored primary care providers' experiences discussing and implementing opioid tapering with patients on long-term opioid therapy. Design: Qualitative study using six semistructured, in-person focus groups. Subject: Primary care providers (N = 40). Setting: Six academically affiliated primary care clinics in university, urban safety net, and Veterans Health Administration medical centers in Colorado. Methods: Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a mixed inductive-deductive approach in ATLAS.ti. Emergent themes were identified through an iterative, multidisciplinary team-based process. Results: We identified 1) strategies for identifying candidates for opioid tapering, 2) barriers to opioid tapering, and 3) facilitators of opioid tapering. Strategies for identifying candidates for opioid tapering included evidence of high-risk behavior, serious adverse events, opioid-related side effects, and patient preference. Barriers included the providers' emotional burden, inadequate resources, and a lack of trust between patient and provider. Facilitators of opioid tapering included empathizing with the patient's experience, preparing patients for opioid tapering, individualizing implementation of opioid tapering, and supportive guidelines and policies. Conclusions: While discussing and implementing opioid tapering present significant challenges, primary care providers described key facilitators. These findings suggest a need to develop and test the effectiveness of resources to support patient-centered opioid tapering and locally developed policies to support and standardize providers' approaches to opioid prescribing.

Patient Outcomes in Dose Reduction or Discontinuation of Long-Term Opioid Therapy: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Expert guidelines recommend reducing or discontinuing long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) when risks outweigh benefits, but evidence on the effect of dose reduction on patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. PURPOSE: To synthesize studies of the effectiveness of strategies to reduce or discontinue LTOT and patient outcomes after dose reduction among adults prescribed LTOT for chronic pain. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from inception through April 2017; reference lists; and expert contacts. STUDY SELECTION: Original research published in English that addressed dose reduction or discontinuation of LTOT for chronic pain. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force quality rating criteria. All authors assessed evidence quality using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Prespecified patient outcomes were pain severity, function, quality of life, opioid withdrawal symptoms, substance use, and adverse events. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-seven studies (11 randomized trials and 56 observational studies) examining 8 intervention categories, including interdisciplinary pain programs, buprenorphine-assisted dose reduction, and behavioral interventions, were found. Study quality was good for 3 studies, fair for 13 studies, and poor for 51 studies. Many studies reported dose reduction, but rates of opioid discontinuation ranged widely across interventions and the overall quality of evidence was very low. Among 40 studies examining patient outcomes after dose reduction (very low overall quality of evidence), improvement was reported in pain severity (8 of 8 fair-quality studies), function (5 of 5 fair-quality studies), and quality of life (3 of 3 fair-quality studies). LIMITATION: Heterogeneous interventions and outcome measures; poor-quality studies with uncontrolled designs. CONCLUSION: Very low quality evidence suggests that several types of interventions may be effective to reduce or discontinue LTOT and that pain, function, and quality of life may improve with opioid dose reduction. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Veterans Health Administration. (PROSPERO: CRD42015020347).

Substance Use Disorder Treatment Following Clinician-Initiated Discontinuation of Long-Term Opioid Therapy Resulting from an Aberrant Urine Drug Test.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is offered to, or utilized by, patients who are discontinued from long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) following aberrant urine drug tests (UDTs). OBJECTIVE: To describe the proportion of patients who were referred to, and engaged in, SUD treatment following LTOT discontinuation and to examine differences in SUD treatment referral and engagement based on the substances that led to discontinuation. DESIGN: From a sample of 600 patients selected from a national cohort of Veterans Health Administration patients who were discontinued from LTOT, we used manual chart review to identify 169 patients who were discontinued because of a UDT that was positive for alcohol, cannabis, or other illicit or non-prescribed controlled substances. MAIN MEASURES: We extracted sociodemographic, clinical, and health care utilization data from patients' electronic medical records. KEY RESULTS: Forty-three percent of patients (n = 73) received an SUD treatment referral following LTOT discontinuation and 20% (n = 34) engaged in a new episode of SUD treatment in the year following discontinuation. Logistic regression models controlling for sociodemographic and clinical variables demonstrated that patients who tested positive for cannabis were less likely than patients who tested positive for non-cannabis substances to receive referrals for SUD treatment (aOR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.23-0.84, p = 0.01) or engage in SUD treatment (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.19-0.94, p = 0.04). Conversely, those who tested positive for cocaine were more likely to receive an SUD treatment referral (aOR = 3.32, 95% CI = 1.57-7.06, p = 0.002) and engage in SUD treatment (aOR = 2.44, 95% CI = 1.00-5.96, p = 0.05) compared to those who did not have a cocaine-positive UDT. CONCLUSIONS: There may be substance-specific differences in clinician referrals to, and patient engagement in, SUD treatment. This suggests a need for more standardized implementation of clinical guidelines that recommend SUD care, when appropriate, following LTOT discontinuation.

Opioid Prescribing at Hospital Discharge Contributes to Chronic Opioid Use.

BACKGROUND: Chronic opioid therapy for chronic pain treatment has increased. Hospital physicians, including hospitalists and medical/surgical resident physicians, care for many hospitalized patients, yet little is known about opioid prescribing at hospital discharge and future chronic opioid use. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize opioid prescribing at hospital discharge among 'opioid naïve' patients. Opioid naïve patients had not filled an opioid prescription at an affiliated pharmacy 1 year preceding their hospital discharge. We also set out to quantify the risk of chronic opioid use and opioid refills 1 year post discharge among opioid naïve patients with and without opioid receipt at discharge. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: From 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, 6,689 opioid naïve patients were discharged from a safety-net hospital. MAIN MEASURE: Chronic opioid use 1 year post discharge. KEY RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of opioid naïve patients (n = 1,688) had opioid receipt within 72 hours of discharge. Patients with opioid receipt were more likely to have diagnoses including neoplasm (6.3% versus 3.5%, p < 0.001), acute pain (2.7% versus 1.0 %, p < 0.001), chronic pain at admission (12.1% versus 3.3%, p < 0.001) or surgery during their hospitalization (65.1% versus 18.4%, p < 0.001) compared to patients without opioid receipt. Patients with opioid receipt were less likely to have alcohol use disorders (15.7% versus 20.7%, p < 0.001) and mental health disorders (23.9% versus 31.4%, p < 0.001) compared to patients without opioid receipt. Chronic opioid use 1 year post discharge was more common among patients with opioid receipt (4.1% versus 1.3%, p < 0.0001) compared to patients without opioid receipt. Opioid receipt was associated with increased odds of chronic opioid use (AOR = 4.90, 95% CI 3.22-7.45) and greater subsequent opioid refills (AOR = 2.67, 95% CI 2.29-3.13) 1 year post discharge compared to no opioid receipt. CONCLUSION: Opioid receipt at hospital discharge among opioid naïve patients increased future chronic opioid use. Physicians should inform patients of this risk prior to prescribing opioids at discharge.

Patients' Perspectives on Tapering of Chronic Opioid Therapy: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE : There is inadequate evidence of long-term benefit and growing evidence of the risks of chronic opioid therapy (COT). Opioid dose reduction, or opioid tapering, may reduce these risks but may also worsen pain and quality of life. Our objective was to explore patients' perspectives on opioid tapering. DESIGN : Qualitative study using in-person, semistructured interviews. SETTING AND PATIENTS : English-speaking, adult primary care patients (N = 24) in three Colorado health care systems. METHODS : Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti. We used a team-based, mixed inductive and deductive approach guided by the Health Belief Model. We iteratively refined emergent themes with input from a multidisciplinary team. RESULTS : Participants had a mean age of 52 years old, were 46% male and 79% white. Six participants (25%) were on COT and not tapering, 12 (50%) were currently tapering COT, and 6 (25%) had discontinued COT. Emergent themes were organized in four domains: risks, barriers, facilitators, and benefits. Patients perceived a low risk of overdose and prioritized the more immediate risk of increased pain with opioid tapering. Barriers included a perceived lack of effectiveness of nonopioid options and fear of opioid withdrawal. Among patients with opioid tapering experience, social support and a trusted health care provider facilitated opioid tapering. These patients endorsed improved quality of life following tapering. CONCLUSIONS : Efforts to support opioid tapering should elicit patients' perceived barriers and seek to build on relationships with family, peers, and providers to facilitate tapering. Future work should identify patient-centered, feasible strategies to support tapering of COT.

Evaluation of a telementoring intervention for pain management in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: Half of all Veterans experience chronic pain yet many face geographical barriers to specialty pain care. In 2011, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) launched the Specialty Care Access Network-ECHO (SCAN-ECHO), which uses telehealth technology to provide primary care providers with case-based specialist consultation and pain management education. Our objective was to evaluate the pilot SCAN-ECHO pain management program (SCAN-ECHO-PM). DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a longitudinal observational evaluation of SCAN-ECHO-PM in seven regional VHA healthcare networks. METHODS: We identified the patient panels of primary care providers who submitted a consultation to one or more SCAN-ECHO-PM sessions. We constructed multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to assess the association between provider SCAN-ECHO-PM consultation and 1) delivery of outpatient care (physical medicine, mental health, substance use disorder, and pain medicine) and 2) medication initiation (antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioid analgesics). RESULTS: Primary care providers (N = 159) who presented one or more SCAN-ECHO-PM sessions had patient panels of 22,454 patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). Provider consultation to SCAN-ECHO-PM was associated with utilization of physical medicine [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.14] but not mental health (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.05), substance use disorder (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84-1.03) or specialty pain clinics (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94-1.08). SCAN-ECHO-PM consultation was associated with initiation of an antidepressant (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.15) or anticonvulsant medication (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.19) but not an opioid analgesic (HR 1.05, 0.99-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: SCAN-ECHO-PM was associated with increased utilization of physical medicine services and initiation of nonopioid medications among patients with CNCP. SCAN-ECHO-PM may provide a novel means of building pain management competency among primary care providers.

Increased hospital and emergency department utilization by individuals with recent criminal justice involvement: results of a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Individuals involved with the criminal justice system have increased health needs and poor access to primary care. OBJECTIVE: To examine hospital and emergency department (ED) utilization and related costs by individuals with recent criminal justice involvement. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Non-institutionalized, civilian U.S. adult participants (n = 154,356) of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2008-2011). MAIN MEASURES: Estimated proportion of adults who reported past year 1) hospitalization or 2) ED utilization according to past year criminal justice involvement, defined as 1) parole or probation, 2) arrest without subsequent correctional supervision, or 3) no criminal justice involvement; estimated annual expenditures using unlinked data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. KEY RESULTS: An estimated 5.7 million adults reported parole or probation and an additional 3.9 million adults reported an arrest in the past year. Adults with recent parole or probation and those with a recent arrest, compared with the general population, had higher rates of hospitalization (12.3 %, 14.3 %, 10.5 %; P < 0.001) and higher rates of ED utilization (39.3 %, 47.2 %, 26.9 %; P < 0.001). Recent parole or probation was an independent predictor of hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.21; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.44) and ED utilization (AOR, 1.35; 95 % CI, 1.12-1.63); Recent arrest was an independent predictor of hospitalization (AOR, 1.26; 95 % CI, 1.08-1.47) and ED utilization (AOR, 1.81; 95 % CI, 1.53-2.15). Individuals with recent criminal justice involvement make up 4.2 % of the U.S. adult population, yet account for an estimated 7.2 % of hospital expenditures and 8.5 % of ED expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Recent criminal justice involvement is associated with increased hospital and ED utilization and costs. The criminal justice system may offer an important point of contact for efforts to improve the healthcare utilization patterns of a large and vulnerable population.

Update in pain medicine for primary care providers: a narrative review, 2010-2012.

OBJECTIVE: This manuscript reviews peer-reviewed literature published from 2010-2012 relevant to the management of chronic pain in the primary care setting. DESIGN: Narrative review of peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and reference lists and queried expert contacts for English-language studies related to the management of chronic noncancer pain in adult patients in primary care settings. One investigator reviewed all eligible studies for relevance, and 47 studies were reviewed by all authors and rated according to their impact on 1) primary care clinical practice, 2) policy, 3) research, and 4) quality of study methods. Through iterative discussion, nine articles were selected for detailed review and discussion. RESULTS: We present articles in six topic areas: interventional pain management; opioid dose and risk of overdose death; neuropathic pain; yoga for chronic low back pain; cognitive behavioral therapy; and systematic approaches to treating back pain. We discuss implications for pain management in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: There is growing evidence for the risks, benefits, and limitations of the multiple modalities available to primary care providers for the management of chronic pain. The dissemination and implementation of the evidence from these studies as well as novel system-level interventions warrant additional study and support from clinicians, educators, and policy makers.

Pain Care at Home to Amplify Function: Protocol Article.

Guidelines recommend strategies to optimize opioid medication safety, including frequent reassessment of the benefits and harms of long-term opioid therapy. Prescribers, who are predominantly primary care providers (PCPs), may lack the training or resources to implement these guideline-concordant practices. Two interventions have been designed to assist PCPs and tested within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Telemedicine Collaborative Management (TCM) provides primarily medication management support via care manager-prescriber teams. Cooperative Pain Education and Self-Management (COPES) promotes self-management strategies for chronic pain via cognitive behavior therapy techniques. Each intervention has been shown to improve prescribing and/or patient outcomes. The added value of combining these interventions is untested. With funding and central coordination by the Integrative Management of Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder for Whole Recovery (IMPOWR) Network of the National Institutes of Health Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative, we will conduct a multisite patient-level randomized hybrid II effectiveness-implementation trial within VHA to compare TCM to TCM + COPES on the primary composite outcome of pain interference and opioid safety, secondary outcomes of alcohol use, anxiety, depression, and sleep, and other consensus IMPOWR Network measures. Implementation facilitation strategies informed by interviews with healthcare providers will target site-specific needs. The impact of these strategies on TCM implementation will be assessed via established formative and summative evaluation techniques. Economic analyses will evaluate intervention cost-effectiveness.