Association Between Statewide Opioid Prescribing Interventions and Opioid Prescribing Patterns in North Carolina, 2006-2018.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of three sequential statewide policy and legislative interventions on opioid prescribing practices among privately insured individuals in North Carolina. METHODS: An interrupted time series approach was used to examine level and trajectory changes of new and prevalent opioid prescription rates, days' supply, and daily morphine milligram equivalents before and after implementation of a 1) prescription drug monitoring program, 2) state medical board initiative, and 3) legislative action. Analyses were conducted using individual-level claims data from a large private health insurance provider serving North Carolina residents, ages 18-64 years, from January 2006 to August 2018. RESULTS: Rates of new and prevalent prescription opioid patients were relatively unaffected by the prescription monitoring program but sharply declined in the months immediately following both medical board (-3.7 new and -19.3 prevalent patients per 10,000 person months) and legislative (-14.1 new and -26.7 prevalent patients) actions. Among all opioid prescriptions, days' supply steadily increased on average over the study period but declined after legislative action (-1.5 days' supply per year). CONCLUSIONS: The voluntary prescription drug monitoring program launched in 2010 only marginally affected opioid prescribing patterns on its own, but its redeployment as an investigative and clinical tool in multifaceted public policy approaches by the state medical board and legislature later in the decade plausibly contributed to notable declines in prescription rates and days' supply. This study lends new emphasis to the importance of enforcement mechanisms for state and national policies seeking to reverse this critical public health crisis.

Pain Agreements and Time-to-Event Analysis of Substance Misuse in a Primary Care Chronic Pain Program.

BACKGROUND: Types and correlates of pain medication agreement (PMA) violations in the primary care setting have not been analyzed. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was completed to examine patient characteristics and correlates of PMA violations, a proxy for substance misuse, over a 15-year period in an outpatient General Medicine Pain Service within the Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Patients who signed the PMA were managed for chronic pain from 2002 through 2017 (N = 1,210). The incidence of PMA violations was measured over a 15-year span. Substance misuse was defined a priori in the study as urine toxicology screen positive for illicit or nonprescribed controlled substances, patient engagement in prescription alteration, doctor-shopping, or diversion. RESULTS: Most patients received a prescription for a controlled substance (77.4%). During enrollment, 488 (40.3%) patients had one or more violations of their PMA. One-third (33.4%) of pain service patients had a violation within 365 days of signing the agreement. Active tobacco smokers had double the incidence of agreement violation within the first 30 days of enrollment. Almost one-half (49.8%) of violations were due to inconsistent use of controlled substances. Patients with any prior DWI/DUI or drug-related offense had a significantly increased rate of substance misuse (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PMA violations were common among a population of patients managed for chronic nonmalignant pain. Universal opioid prescribing precautions, including PMAs, require further investigation to assess their roles in mitigating the potential patient and societal harms associated with opioid prescribing.

Short-Acting Opioids Are Associated with Comparable Analgesia to Long-Acting Opioids in Patients with Chronic Osteoarthritis with a Reduced Opioid Equivalence Dosing.

Setting: There are no studies that exist within the primary care setting that address optimal opioid therapy in osteoarthritis patients. In light of the recently released US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on opioid use in chronic noncancer pain, there is a pressing need to better characterize the effectiveness of long- and short-acting opioids. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of short-acting opioids (SAO) vs long-acting opioids (LAO) and combination therapies (SAO and LAO) for treating chronic osteoarthritis pain in a retrospective trial. Methods: Average and lowest pain scores approximately one to two weeks prior to patient appointments were collected and averaged for both SAO and LAO patients who were actively enrolled in a pain clinic at an academic medical center. Results: There was no statistical difference between reported average and low pain scores for the SAO vs LAO groups (P = 0.201 and P = 0.296, respectively), although the SAO group on average had a significantly lower morphine equivalence (P < 0.001). Various covariates for both groups were tested in an adjusted model to look at trends in the use of nonopioid medications (i.e., acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antidepressants, and adjunct analgesic agents). No significant differences in pain scores existed when comparing covariates for the SAO vs LAO groups. Conclusions: The study suggests that in addition to being effective, short-acting opioid medications may also provide a safer and cheaper alternative to long-acting opioid therapies in the treatment of chronic osteoarthritis. Perspective: This article investigates the effectiveness of short-acting vs long-acting opioids for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain, specifically osteoarthritis. This information could potentially aid practitioners in primary care environments to design equally efficacious and less costly opioid regimens, while simultaneously enhancing patient safety.

The Accuracy of a Fibromyalgia Diagnosis in General Practice.

Objective: To compare the characteristics of people with fibromyalgia (FM) with those with other forms of nonmalignant chronic pain. Design: A prospective cohort study conducted in a chronic pain management clinic within an academic medical center. Setting: Many symptoms of the chronic pain syndrome FM are common to other pain or musculoskeletal syndromes. FM may be misdiagnosed by clinicians. Subjects: Thirty-three patients with a working diagnosis of FM were identified: 26 (78.8%) participated in the study. They were matched by age (mean = 53.0 years) and gender (80.8% female) to a control group with other forms of chronic nonmalignant pain. Methods: Standardized physical examinations for FM were undertaken using the 1990 and revised 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines. The groups were compared using diagnoses of psychiatric disorders and responses to the Pain Disability Index, Personal Health Questionnaire, Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, and Rapid Estimate Adult Literacy in Medicine. Results: The most common psychiatric disorders were depression (44.4%) and anxiety (27.3%). Incidence of at least one psychiatric condition was 80.8%, and the only difference (P = 0.002) between the two populations was the mean number of tender points: 5.6 (±4.2) vs controls 3.2 (±2.2). Only three (11.5%) participants with a prior diagnosis of FM fulfilled the 1990 ACR diagnostic criteria, increasing to 38.5% when the 2010 criteria were applied; however, 46.1% of controls also met the revised diagnostic criteria. Conclusions: FM is commonly misdiagnosed: all patients with a working diagnosis should be reassessed and reviewed to ensure that the most appropriate treatment is provided.

Physician perceptions of integrating advanced practice pharmacists into practice.

OBJECTIVES: Barriers have prevented full integration of advanced practice pharmacists (APPs) into collaborative practice in some areas despite evidence describing their value. APPs in North Carolina can be recognized as Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners (CPPs) under a collaborative practice agreement and provide comprehensive medication management under physician supervision. This study describes the perceptions of physicians regarding the barriers and benefits of integrating CPPs into interprofessional teams and compares physician and CPP perceptions. METHODS: This prospective descriptive study surveyed CPP supervising physicians in North Carolina. The questionnaire consisted of 17 multiple-choice and free-response questions. Questions included demographics, perceived benefits and challenges of incorporating CPPs into health care teams, and services provided by CPPs. Findings were compared with previously published data that assessed CPP perceptions about the same topics to gain insight into common perspectives of team members. RESULTS: Fifty-six physicians (23.1%) responded, identifying enhanced clinical outcomes (87.5%), access to drug knowledge (58.9%), and creation of a multidisciplinary model for learners (57.1%) as the top benefits of working with CPPs. Primary barriers included limited reimbursement (60.7%) and billing difficulties (51.8%). More CPPs acknowledged provider acceptance as a barrier (25.9% vs. 3.6%; P = 0.001). Twelve physicians (21.4%) and no CPPs identified space as a barrier. CONCLUSION: Physicians identified enhanced clinical outcomes, access to drug knowledge, and creation of a multidisciplinary model for learners as the top benefits of incorporating CPPs into teams, and billing difficulties and limited reimbursement were the primary barriers. These findings were similar to the perceptions of CPPs, with exceptions being that physicians were more concerned about space limitations and CPPs noted that provider acceptance may be difficult. These findings may provide guidance to providers desiring to establish collaborative practice.

Advanced Practice Pharmacists: a retrospective evaluation of the efficacy and cost of ClinicaL Pharmacist PractitionErs managing ambulatory Medicare patients in North Carolina (APPLE-NC).

BACKGROUND: Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners are advanced practicing pharmacists in North Carolina that provide disease-specific management. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the efficacy and charges from referrals to a Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner by the primary care provider, to those managed by a primary care provider alone. METHODS: Patients were separated into cohorts depending if they had at least two appointments with a Clinical Pharmacist Practitioner from November 2008 to November 2011. A primary care provider saw all patients at least twice during the study period. Cohorts were then matched by age, gender, and disease states. Medicare billed data was evaluated from outpatient visits related to hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral neuropathy, as well as emergency department visits and inpatient admissions. Cost of medications was estimated using 2009 AWP data corresponding to medication histories within the electronic medical record. Efficacy was defined as ability to reach disease state goal determined using national guidelines and reduction in pain score. Efficacy was analyzed by difference-in-differences test and all other numerical data tested by paired t-tests. RESULTS: The Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners cohort experienced more outpatient visits (1338 vs. 858, p < 0.001), fewer emergency department visits (115 vs. 190, p < 0.05), and similar inpatient admissions (88 vs. 117, p > 0.05) than the primary care providers cohort, respectively. The Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners cohort showed changes in charges of +22.6 % for outpatient visits, -45.5 % emergency department visits, and -13.2 % inpatient admissions relative to the primary care provider cohort. There was no difference in average daily medication cost (Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners $38.52 vs. primary care providers $38.23, p = 0.97) or achievement of disease state goals. CONCLUSION: APPLE-NC demonstrated that through referrals, Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners provide services comparable in charges and efficacy to primary care providers. Consequently, the current increased need for primary care practitioners can be met in part by increasing the utilization of advanced practice pharmacists for chronic disease management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This does not apply for this retrospective cohort study.

Practice Characteristics and Geographic Distribution of Clinical Pharmacist Practitioners in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Clinical pharmacist practitioners (CPPs) are specially credentialed pharmacists in North Carolina. CPPs potentially play an important role in meeting the health care needs of populations in rural and underserved areas. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using an electronic survey sent to all active and inactive CPPs in North Carolina. The survey consisted of 36 multiple-choice and free text questions. Respondents were queried regarding qualifications, experience, practice characteristics, and perceived rewards and challenges of CPP practice. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 54 active CPPs and 22 inactive CPPs, for an overall response rate of 65.5%. Forty-one active CPPs (75.9%) and 14 inactive CPPs (63.6%) came from ambulatory care backgrounds. Twenty-eight active CPPs (51.9%) and 11 inactive CPPs (50.0%) practiced in an urban setting, while 7 active CPPs (13.0%) and 3 inactive CPPs (13.6%) practiced in a rural setting. The majority of CPPs work in larger practices. Thirty-three active CPPs (61.1%) and 12 inactive CPPs (54.5%) were paid by the institutions for which they were employed. LIMITATIONS: The overall survey response rate was only 65.5%. Additionally, the majority of survey questions were in a multiple-choice format, which may have prevented more honest reflection. CONCLUSIONS: Active CPPs most often come from ambulatory care backgrounds. Few CPPs are practicing in rural areas, a circumstance that may be related to financial viability, as most CPP practice in, and are compensated by, larger institutions such as academic health centers.

Design of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial comparing the effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for voluntary opioid tapering: The INSPIRE study protocol.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the design and protocol of a pragmatic, randomized trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain for the voluntary tapering of opioid dose in adults with chronic noncancer pain. Integrated Services for Pain: Interventions to Reduce Pain Effectively (INSPIRE) is a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at three academic health centers in the southeastern United States. Participants are adults receiving long-term opioid therapy of at least 20 morphine milligram equivalents daily for chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Participants were randomized to either the shared decision-making intervention or the motivational interviewing session and cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain intervention. All participants also received guideline-concordant care supporting opioid pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome was change from baseline in average daily prescribed opioid dose at 12 months, using prescribing data from electronic health records. Secondary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference and Physical Function at 12 months. CONCLUSION: This trial evaluates the comparative effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain for the voluntary tapering of opioid dose in adults with chronic noncancer pain. Results from this study can guide clinicians, researchers, and policymakers as they seek to reduce opioid prescribing and improve management of chronic pain. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03454555 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03454555). Participant enrollment began on June 26, 2019.

Perceived successes and challenges of clinical pharmacist practitioners in North Carolina.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the successes and challenges reported by current (active) and formerly practicing (inactive) CPPs and to determine the reasons why inactive CPPs discontinued advanced practice. METHODS: A sampling frame, consisting of all active and inactive CPPs, was obtained from the North Carolina Boards of Medicine and Pharmacy. An electronic survey was sent to 84 active and 32 inactive CPPs. Respondents were queried regarding qualifications, experience, and practice characteristics, perceived successes, and perceived challenges. RESULTS: 54 active and 22 inactive CPPs responded. Among active CPPs, 28 (51.9%) reported improved patient care outcomes and 27 (50.0%) reported an expanded scope of practice. Regarding challenges, 30 (55.6%) identified billing for services and 19 (35.2%) noted reimbursement through third parties. Among inactive CPPs, 14 (63.6%) experienced improved patient care outcomes and 11 (50.0%) said their licensure created a practice model for learners. Billing (54.5%) and reimbursement (31.8%) were the top challenges experienced by inactive CPPs. A total of 12 inactive CPPs (54.5%) discontinued CPP licensure because it was not a requirement of their current position. Three (13.6%) discontinued because of insurmountable challenges that made it difficult to continue practice. CONCLUSION: Although CPPs held a perception of improved patient care outcomes, billing for services and obtaining reimbursement were reported as the most prevalent challenges and may have played a major role in CPPs becoming inactive.

Intended and unintended consequences: Changes in opioid prescribing practices for postsurgical, acute, and chronic pain indications following two policies in North Carolina, 2012-2018 - Controlled and single-series interrupted time series analyses.

BACKGROUND: The potential misapplication of current opioid prescribing policies remains understudied and may have substantial adverse implications for patient safety. METHODS: We used autoregressive integrated moving average models to assess level and trend changes in monthly 1) prescribing rates, 2) days' supply, and 3) daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) of incident opioid prescriptions relative to 1) a state medical board initiative to reduce high-dose and -volume opioid prescribing and 2) legislation to limit initial opioid prescriptions for acute and postsurgical pain. We examined outcomes by pain indication overall and by cancer history, using prescribing patterns for benzodiazepines to control for temporal trends. We used large private health insurance claims data to include North Carolina residents, aged 18-64, insured at any point between January 2012 and August 2018. RESULTS: After the medical board initiative, prescribing patterns for chronic pain patients did not change; conversely, acute and postsurgical pain patients experienced immediate declines in daily MME. Post-legislation prescription rates did not decline for those with acute, postsurgical, and non-cancer pain, but instead declined among cancer patients with chronic pain. Chronic pain patients experienced the largest days' supply declines post-legislation, instead of acute and postsurgical pain patients. CONCLUSIONS: We found mixed evidence on the potential impact of two opioid prescribing policies, with some observed declines in a group not intended to be impacted by the policy. This study provides evidence of the need for clearer opioid prescribing policies to ensure impacts on intended populations and avoid unintended consequences.

Increasing access to the profession: Admissions lessons learned from the pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic have forced quick and significant changes to recruitment and admissions practices in colleges of pharmacy. This process has helped to identify barriers and challenges for prospective students. At the University of North Carolina Eshelman School of Pharmacy, some changes were already under consideration prior to the pandemic, such as moving to test-optional admissions and allowing remote interviews, while new considerations included offering the entire recruitment and admissions process remotely. METHODS: In 2020-2021, the decision was made to move to test-optional admissions. A separate decision was made to conduct interviews remotely. Data from the admission cycle were collected from the Pharmacy College Application Service as part of the standard admissions process and exported for analysis. Descriptive statistics (mean ±â€¯SD) were used. RESULTS: Completed applications increased by 59.1% in 2020-2021 from the previous year. Applications increased by 9.8% from underrepresented students, by 6.2% from those with a bachelor's degree, and by 8.4% by out of state students. Other admissions metrics, such as the mean grade point average (3.50) and mean Pharmacy College Admissions Test composite percentile (88%), did not change. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic experience validated our perspective that we must continue to embrace change and seize opportunities to reduce barriers for prospective students to improve access to the profession. The changes that this pandemic has necessitated may help to close the gaps in accessing health professions education.

Association of Opioid Dose Reduction With Opioid Overdose and Opioid Use Disorder Among Patients Receiving High-Dose, Long-term Opioid Therapy in North Carolina.

Importance: Rapid reduction or discontinuation of long-term opioid therapy may increase risk of opioid overdose or opioid use disorder (OUD). Current guidelines for chronic pain management caution against rapid dose reduction but are based on limited evidence. Objective: To characterize the association between rapid reduction or abrupt discontinuation of opioid therapy (vs maintained or gradual reduction) and incidence of opioid overdose and OUD among patients prescribed high-dose, long-term opioid therapy (HDLTOT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients aged 18 to 64 years who were prescribed HDLTOT (≥90 daily morphine milligram equivalents for ≥90% of 90 days) from January 2006 to September 2018, with follow-up up to 4 years after cohort entry. Claims data were drawn from a large private health insurer in North Carolina and analyzed from March 1, 2006, to September 30, 2018. Exposures: Time-varying exposure of rapid dose reduction or discontinuation (>10% dose reduction/week) vs maintenance, increase, or gradual reduction or discontinuation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was incident opioid overdose (fatal or nonfatal) or diagnosed OUD. Inverse probability-weighted cumulative incidence of outcomes were estimated using the cumulative incidence function and hazard ratios (HRs) using marginal structural Fine-Gray models as a function of rapid dose tapering or discontinuation (vs gradual reduction or discontinuation or maintained or increased), accounting for competing risks. Results: A total of 19 443 patients (median [IQR] age, 49 [41-55] years; 10 073 [51.8%] men) who received HDLTOT were identified. Rapid reduction or discontinuation was associated with higher risk of fatal and nonfatal overdoses compared with gradual reduction after the first year (year 1: HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.94-2.18; years 2-4: HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.31-2.90). There was no association between rapid reduction or discontinuation and diagnosed OUD through 2 years of follow-up; however, the hazard of incident OUD among patients exposed to rapid tapering or discontinuation was greater 25 to 48 months after the start of follow-up (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01-1.63). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, rapid dose reduction or discontinuation was associated with increased risk of opioid overdose and OUD during long-term follow-up. These findings reinforce prior concerns about safety of rapid dose reductions for patients receiving HDLTOT and highlight the need for caution when reducing opioid doses.

Physician-pharmacist collaboration on chronic non-cancer pain management during the opioid crisis: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Management of chronic non-cancer pain is complex, requiring clinicians to balance pain management with the risk of opioid abuse. The role of ambulatory care pharmacists in chronic pain management is well-established, but little research has explored the feasibility of building collaboration on chronic pain and opioid management between physicians and community pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To explore physician and pharmacist perspectives on the opioid crisis and the possibility of physician and community pharmacist collaborations to manage chronic non-cancer pain in the context of the opioid crisis. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were performed with a snowball convenience sample 15 physicians and 25 pharmacists in North Carolina between November 2016 and April 2017. Transcribed data were analyzed using applied thematic analysis, and resulting codes were organized into themes and domains which emerged from analysis. RESULTS: Both physicians and pharmacists described current care deficiencies and steps needed to mitigate opioid abuse and diversion. Physicians discussed the need for additional supports and resources for chronic pain management and regarded positively the role of the community pharmacist in chronic pain management and mitigating opioid abuse. Pharmacists identified cost as the major barrier to implementing new services, and expressed willingness to participate in new chronic pain and opioid interventions. CONCLUSION: Within the study sample, strong interest exists for collaboration between physicians and community pharmacists. This highlights a potential opportunity to expand care for patients with chronic non-cancer pain.

Community Pharmacist Preferences in Transition of Care Communications.

OBJECTIVE: To determine community pharmacist preferences in transition of care (TOC) communications. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, data were gathered via electronic survey of community pharmacists regarding their preferences for TOC communications. The survey was distributed via email by the North Carolina Board of Pharmacy. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 343 community pharmacists (response rate = 6.1%). Responders most commonly worked in an independent, single store (29.2%, n = 100) or national chain (29.2%, n = 100) pharmacy setting. Preferred method for a TOC communication was via electronic health record (63.0%, n = 184). Preferred TOC communication content are mentioned as follows: active (93.2%, n = 274) and discontinued (86.4%, n = 254) medications and reason for hospitalization (85.0%, n = 250). The top 3 self-identified barriers to utilizing a TOC communication: lack of care coordination with community pharmacy (35.0%, n = 14), lack of support from other health-care providers (22.5%, n = 9), and absence of compensation for providing the service (17.5%, n = 7). When asked if TOC communications were available, 97.5% (n = 278) indicated it would be useful. CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists acknowledged a need for TOC communications and shared their preferences in the content and method of communication. Future research is warranted to implement TOC communications between a health system and community pharmacy.

Management of Pain in the United States-A Brief History and Implications for the Opioid Epidemic.

Pain management in the United States reflects attitudes to those in pain. Increased numbers of disabled veterans in the 1940s to 1960s led to an increased focus on pain and its treatment. The view of the person in pain has moved back and forth between a physiological construct to an individual with pain where perception may be related to social, emotional, and cultural factors. Conceptually, pain has both a medical basis and a political context, moving between, for example, objective evidence of disability due to pain and subjective concerns of malingering. In the 20th century, pain management became predominately pharmacologic. Perceptions of undertreatment led to increased use of opioids, at first for those with cancer-related pain and then later for noncancer pain without the multidimensional care that was intended. The increased use was related to exaggerated claims in the medical literature and by the pharmaceutical industry, of a lack of addiction in the setting of noncancer pain for these medications-a claim that was subsequently found to be false and deliberatively deceptive; an epidemic of opioid prescribing began in the 1990s. An alarming rise in deaths due to opioids has led to several efforts to decrease use, both in patients with noncancer conditions and in those with cancer and survivors of cancer.

Pharmacist Intervention for Blood Pressure Control in Patients with Diabetes and/or Chronic Kidney Disease.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine if hypertensive patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD) receiving a pharmacist intervention had a greater reduction in mean blood pressure (BP) and improved BP control at 9 months compared with those receiving usual care; and compare Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) guideline and 2014 guideline (JNC 8) BP control rates in patients with DM and/or CKD. METHODS: This cluster randomized trial included 32 medical offices in 15 states. Clinical pharmacists made treatment recommendations to physicians at intervention sites. This post hoc analysis evaluated mean BP and BP control rates in the intervention and control groups. MAIN RESULTS: The study included 335 patients (227 intervention, 108 control) when mean BP and control rates were evaluated by JNC 7 inclusion and control criteria. When JNC 8 inclusion and control criteria were applied, 241 patients (165 intervention, 76 control) remained and were included in the analysis. The pharmacist-intervention group had significantly greater mean systolic blood pressure reduction compared with usual care at 9 months (8.64 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI] -12.8 to -4.49, p<0.001). The pharmacist-intervention group had significantly higher BP control at 9 months than usual care by either the JNC 7 or JNC 8 inclusion and control groups (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% CI 1.01-3.86, p=0.0470 and OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.21-3.85, p=0.0102, respectively). PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that a physician-pharmacist collaborative intervention was effective in reducing mean systolic BP and improving BP control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension with DM and/or CKD, regardless of which BP guidelines were used.

Use of patient flow analysis to improve patient visit efficiency by decreasing wait time in a primary care-based disease management programs for anticoagulation and chronic pain: a quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic conditions require frequent care visits. Problems can arise during several parts of the patient visit that decrease efficiency, making it difficult to effectively care for high volumes of patients. The purpose of the study is to test a method to improve patient visit efficiency. METHODS: We used Patient Flow Analysis to identify inefficiencies in the patient visit, suggest areas for improvement, and test the effectiveness of clinic interventions. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean visit time for 93 anticoagulation clinic patient visits was 84 minutes (+/- 50 minutes) and the mean visit time for 25 chronic pain clinic patient visits was 65 minutes (+/- 21 minutes). Based on these data, we identified specific areas of inefficiency and developed interventions to decrease the mean time of the patient visit. After interventions, follow-up data found the mean visit time was reduced to 59 minutes (+/-25 minutes) for the anticoagulation clinic, a time decrease of 25 minutes (t-test 39%; p < 0.001). Mean visit time for the chronic pain clinic was reduced to 43 minutes (+/- 14 minutes) a time decrease of 22 minutes (t-test 34 %; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patient Flow Analysis is an effective technique to identify inefficiencies in the patient visit and efficiently collect patient flow data. Once inefficiencies are identified they can be improved through brief interventions.

Predictors of opioid misuse in patients with chronic pain: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse can complicate chronic pain management, and the non-medical use of opioids is a growing public health problem. The incidence and risk factors for opioid misuse in patients with chronic pain, however, have not been well characterized. We conducted a prospective cohort study to determine the one-year incidence and predictors of opioid misuse among patients enrolled in a chronic pain disease management program within an academic internal medicine practice. METHODS: One-hundred and ninety-six opioid-treated patients with chronic, non-cancer pain of at least three months duration were monitored for opioid misuse at pre-defined intervals. Opioid misuse was defined as: 1. Negative urine toxicological screen (UTS) for prescribed opioids; 2. UTS positive for opioids or controlled substances not prescribed by our practice; 3. Evidence of procurement of opioids from multiple providers; 4. Diversion of opioids; 5. Prescription forgery; or 6. Stimulants (cocaine or amphetamines) on UTS. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 52 years, 55% were male, and 75% were white. Sixty-two of 196 (32%) patients committed opioid misuse. Detection of cocaine or amphetamines on UTS was the most common form of misuse (40.3% of misusers). In bivariate analysis, misusers were more likely than non-misusers to be younger (48 years vs 54 years, p < 0.001), male (59.6% vs. 38%; p = 0.023), have past alcohol abuse (44% vs 23%; p = 0.004), past cocaine abuse (68% vs 21%; p < 0.001), or have a previous drug or DUI conviction (40% vs 11%; p < 0.001%). In multivariate analyses, age, past cocaine abuse (OR, 4.3), drug or DUI conviction (OR, 2.6), and a past alcohol abuse (OR, 2.6) persisted as predictors of misuse. Race, income, education, depression score, disability score, pain score, and literacy were not associated with misuse. No relationship between pain scores and misuse emerged. CONCLUSION: Opioid misuse occurred frequently in chronic pain patients in a pain management program within an academic primary care practice. Patients with a history of alcohol or cocaine abuse and alcohol or drug related convictions should be carefully evaluated and followed for signs of misuse if opioids are prescribed. Structured monitoring for opioid misuse can potentially ensure the appropriate use of opioids in chronic pain management and mitigate adverse public health effects of diversion.

A primary care, multi-disciplinary disease management program for opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain and a high burden of psychiatric comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain is a common problem that is often accompanied by psychiatric comorbidity and disability. The effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary pain management program was tested in a 3 month before and after trial. METHODS: Providers in an academic general medicine clinic referred patients with chronic non-cancer pain for participation in a program that combined the skills of internists, clinical pharmacists, and a psychiatrist. Patients were either receiving opioids or being considered for opioid therapy. The intervention consisted of structured clinical assessments, monthly follow-up, pain contracts, medication titration, and psychiatric consultation. Pain, mood, and function were assessed at baseline and 3 months using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale scale (CESD) and the Pain Disability Index (PDI). Patients were monitored for substance misuse. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled. Mean age was 51 years, 60% were male, 78% were Caucasian, and 93% were receiving opioids. Baseline average pain was 6.5 on an 11 point scale. The average CESD score was 24.0, and the mean PDI score was 47.0. Sixty-three patients (73%) completed 3 month follow-up. Fifteen withdrew from the program after identification of substance misuse. Among those completing 3 month follow-up, the average pain score improved to 5.5 (p = 0.003). The mean PDI score improved to 39.3 (p < 0.001). Mean CESD score was reduced to 18.0 (p < 0.001), and the proportion of depressed patients fell from 79% to 54% (p = 0.003). Substance misuse was identified in 27 patients (32%). CONCLUSIONS: A primary care disease management program improved pain, depression, and disability scores over three months in a cohort of opioid-treated patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Substance misuse and depression were common, and many patients who had substance misuse identified left the program when they were no longer prescribed opioids. Effective care of patients with chronic pain should include rigorous assessment and treatment of these comorbid disorders and intensive efforts to insure follow up.