Clinical perspectives on hospitals' role in the opioid epidemic.

BACKGROUND: Policymakers, legislators, and clinicians have raised concerns that hospital-based clinicians may be incentivized to inappropriately prescribe and administer opioids when addressing pain care needs of their patients, thus potentially contributing to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. Given the need to involve all healthcare settings, including hospitals, in joint efforts to curb the opioid epidemic, it is essential to understand if clinicians perceive hospitals as contributors to the problem. Therefore, we examined clinical perspectives on the role of hospitals in the opioid epidemic. METHODS: We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with 23 clinicians from 6 different acute care hospitals that are part of a single healthcare system in the Midwestern United States. Our participants were hospitalists (N = 12), inpatient registered nurses (N = 9), and inpatient adult nurse practitioners (N = 2). In the interviews, we asked clinicians whether hospitals play a role in the opioid epidemic, and if so, how hospitals may contribute to the epidemic. We used a qualitative thematic analysis approach to analyze coded text for patterns and themes and examined potential differences in themes by respondent type using Dedoose software. RESULTS: The majority of clinicians believed hospitals contribute to the opioid epidemic. Multiple clinicians cited Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) reimbursement policy and the Joint Commission's report as drivers of inappropriate opioid prescribing in hospitals. Furthermore, numerous clinicians stated that opioids are inappropriately administered in the emergency department (ED), potentially as a mechanism to facilitate discharge and prevent re-admission. Many clinicians also described how overreliance on pre-populated pain care orders for surgical (orthopedic) patients, may be contributing to inappropriate opioid use in the hospital. Finally, clinicians suggested the following initiatives for hospitals to help address the crisis: 1) educating patients about negative consequences of using opioids long-term and setting realistic pain expectations; 2) educating medical staff about appropriate opioid prescribing practices, particularly for patients with complex chronic conditions (chronic pain; opioid use disorder (OUD)); and 3) strengthening the hospital leadership efforts to decrease inappropriate opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings can inform efforts at decreasing inappropriate opioid use in hospitals.

Factors That Influence Changes to Existing Chronic Pain Management Plans.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this qualitative study is to better understand primary care clinician decision making for managing chronic pain. Specifically, we focus on the factors that influence changes to existing chronic pain management plans. Limitations in guidelines and training leave clinicians to use their own judgment and experience in managing the complexities associated with treating patients with chronic pain. This study provides insight into those judgments based on clinicians' first-person accounts. Insights gleaned from this study could inspire innovations aimed at supporting primary care clinicians (PCCs) in managing chronic pain. METHODS: We conducted 89 interviews with PCCs to obtain their first-person perspective of the factors that influenced changes in treatment plans for their patients. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, cognitive scientists, and public health researchers. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged through our analysis of factors that influenced a change in chronic pain management: 1) change in patient condition; 2) outcomes related to treatment; 3) nonadherent patient behavior; 4) insurance constraints; 5) change in guidelines, laws, or policies; 6) approaches to new patients; and 7) specialist recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis sheds light on the factors that lead PCCs to change treatment plans for patients with chronic pain. An understanding of these factors can inform the types of innovations needed to support PCCs in providing chronic pain care. We highlight key insights from our analysis and offer ideas for potential practice innovations.

An Analysis of Primary Care Clinician Communication About Risk, Benefits, and Goals Related to Chronic Opioid Therapy.

Background. Safe opioid prescribing and effective pain care are particularly important issues in the United States, where decades of widespread opioid prescribing have contributed to high rates of opioid use disorder. Because of the importance of clinician-patient communication in effective pain care and recent initiatives to curb rising opioid overdose deaths, this study sought to understand how clinicians and patients communicate about the risks, benefits, and goals of opioid therapy during primary care visits. Methods. We recruited clinicians and patients from six primary care clinics across three health systems in the Midwest United States. We audio-recorded 30 unique patients currently receiving opioids for chronic noncancer pain from 12 clinicians. We systematically analyzed transcribed, clinic visits to identify emergent themes. Results. Twenty of the 30 patient participants were females. Several patients had multiple pain diagnoses, with the most common diagnoses being osteoarthritis (n = 10), spondylosis (n = 6), and low back pain (n = 5). We identified five themes: 1) communication about individual-level and population-level risks, 2) communication about policies or clinical guidelines related to opioids, 3) communication about the limited effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain conditions, 4) communication about nonopioid therapies for chronic pain, and 5) communication about the goal of the opioid tapering. Conclusions. Clinicians discuss opioid-related risks in varying ways during patient visits, which may differentially affect patient experiences. Our findings may inform the development and use of more standardized approaches to discussing opioids during primary care visits.

Balancing Patient-Centered and Safe Pain Care for Nonsurgical Inpatients: Clinical and Managerial Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals and clinicians aim to deliver care that is safe. Simultaneously, they are ensuring that care is patient centered, meaning that it is respectful of patients' values, preferences, and experiences. However, little is known about delivering care in cases in which these goals may not align. For example, hospitals and clinicians are facing the daunting challenge of balancing safe and patient-centered pain care for nonsurgical patients, due to lack of comprehensive care guidelines and complexity of this patient population. METHODS: To gather clinical and managerial perspectives on the importance, feasibility, and strategies used to balance patient-centered care (PCC) and safe pain care for nonsurgical inpatients, the research team conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with hospitalists, registered nurses, and health care managers from one health care system in the Midwestern United States. We systematically examined transcribed interviews and identified major themes using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants acknowledged the importance of balancing PCC and safe pain care. They envisioned this balance as a continuum, with certain patients for whom it is easier (for example, an opioid-naive patient with a fracture), vs. more difficult (for example, a patient with opioid use disorder). Participants reported several strategies they use to balance PCC and safe pain care, including offering alternatives to opioids, setting realistic pain goals and expectations, and using a team approach. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and health care managers use various strategies to balance PCC and safe pain care for nonsurgical patients. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of these strategies on patient outcomes.