A qualitative assessment of factors contributing to Spanish-speaking federally qualified health center patients' chronic pain experiences.

People of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (Latinx people) experience pain diagnosis, treatment, and care disparities relative to non-Latinx Whites. Those whose preferred language is Spanish may experience additional disparities when receiving care in a language-discordant environment. In order to better understand medically underserved Spanish-speaking Latinx patients' pain care experience in primary care, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with federally qualified health center staff members (n = 9) and Spanish-speaking adult Latinx patients with chronic pain (n = 12) to capture data on their perspectives. Interview data were mapped to the individual (microsystem), interpersonal (mesosystem), organizational (exosystem), and environmental (macrosystem) levels of Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory and analyzed using thematic content analysis informed by the Framework Method. Findings suggest that Spanish-speaking patients and English-speaking care team members may interpret information about pain state and severity differently, may have misaligned expectations about care, treatment methodologies, and treatment goals, and may experience difficulty forming a mutual understanding during health care encounters due to cross-linguistic and cross-cultural miscommunication. Patients preferred to describe their pain in words rather than with numbers or standardized scales, and both patients and frontline care team members expressed frustration with medical interpretation services, which added time and complexity to visits. Patients and health center staff emphasized the diversity of experiences among Spanish-speaking Latinx people, and the need to account for both linguistic and cultural differences during care encounters. Both groups supported hiring more Spanish-speaking, Latinx healthcare personnel who better resemble the patient population, which has the potential to improve linguistic and cultural concordance and competence, with the aim of improving care outcomes and patient satisfaction. Further study is warranted to examine how linguistic and cultural communication barriers impact pain assessment and treatment in primary care, the extent to which patients feel understood by their care teams, and their confidence in their ability to understand and interpret treatment recommendations.

Are Pain Screening and Functional Assessment Results Associated with New Diagnoses and Treatment for Pain in Primary Care? An Observational Study.

Purpose: To determine if pain screening and functional assessment results are associated with new diagnoses and treatment for pain in primary care. Patients and Methods: Observational study at 13 primary care sites of a statewide federally qualified health center that implemented routine screening and functional assessment for all adults in primary care. The study group included 10,091 adults aged 18+ who had an in-person visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, where they screened positive for chronic pain and completed a 3-question functional assessment with the PEG (Pain, Enjoyment of Life, General Activity). Multivariate logistic regressions quantified associations between pain frequency, diagnosis and treatment, sociodemographics, comorbidities, and self-reported severe pain impairment with pain diagnoses and treatment documented after screening. Results: Patients were mostly women (60.3%), Latinx (41.1%), English-speaking (80.1%), and Medicaid-insured (62.0%); they averaged 49.1 years old (SD = 13.7 years). Patients with severe pain impairment or who were Latinx were more likely to get a newly documented pain diagnosis (absolute risk difference [ARD]: 13.2% and 8.6%, ps < 0.0001), while patients with mental health/substance use or medical comorbidities were less likely (ARDs: -20.0% to -6.2%, ps < 0.001). Factors most consistently associated with treatment were prior treatment of the same modality (4 of 7 treatments, ARDs = 27.3% to 44.1%, ps <0.0001), new pain diagnosis (5 of 7, ARDs = 3.2% to 27.4%, ps <0.001), and severe impairment (4 of 7, ARDs = 2.6% to 6.5%, ps < 0.0001). A new diagnosis had the strongest association with non-opioid pain analgesics and physical medicine (ARD = 27.0% and 27.4%, p < 0.0001). Latinx patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesics and mental health/substance use medications and counseling (ARDs = -3.3% to 7.5%, ps <0.0001). Conclusion: Screening and assessment with patient-reported tools may influence pain care. Care for Latinx patients differed from non-Latinx white patients.

Evaluation of a Chronic Pain Screening Program Implemented in Primary Care.

Importance: Although pain is among the most common symptoms reported by patients, primary care practitioners (PCPs) face substantial challenges identifying and assessing pain. Objective: To evaluate a 2-step process for chronic pain screening and follow-up in primary care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of patients with a primary care visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, was conducted at a statewide, multisite federally qualified health center. Participants included 68 PCPs and 58 medical assistants from 13 sites who implemented the screening process in primary care, and 38 866 patients aged 18 years or older with a primary care visit during that time. Exposures: Single-question assessment of pain frequency, followed by a 3-question PEG (pain, enjoyment of life, general activity) functional assessment for patients with chronic pain. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adherence to a 2-step chronic pain screening and PEG process, proportion of patients with positive screening results, mean PEG pain severity greater than or equal to 7, and documented chronic painful condition diagnosis in patient's electronic health record between 1 year before and 90 days after screening. Results: Of 38 866 patients with a primary care visit, 31 600 patients (81.3%) underwent screening. Mean (SD) age was 46.2 (15.4) years, and most were aged 35 to 54 years (12 987 [41.1%]), female (18 436 [58.3%]), Hispanic (14 809 [46.9%]), and English-speaking (22 519 [71.3%]), and had Medicaid insurance (18 442 [58.4%]). A total of 10 262 participants (32.5%) screened positive and, of these, 9701 (94.5%) completed the PEG questionnaire. PEG responses indicated severe pain interference with activities of daily living (PEG ≥7) in 5735 (59.1%) participants. A chronic painful condition had not been diagnosed in 4257 (43.9%) patients in the year before screening. A new chronic painful condition was diagnosed at screening or within 90 days in 2250 (52.9%) patients. Care teams found the workflow acceptable, but cited lengthy administration time, challenges with comprehension of the PEG questions, and limited comprehensiveness as implementation barriers. Conclusions and Relevance: A systematic, 2-step process for chronic pain screening and functional assessment in primary care appeared to identify patients with previously undocumented chronic pain and was feasible to implement. Patient-provided information on the frequency of pain, pain level, and pain interference can help improve the assessment and monitoring of pain in primary care.

Risks in triplet pregnancy: advanced maternal age, premature rupture of membranes and risk estimates of mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of older maternal age on the risk of mortality associated with premature rupture of membranes (PROM) among triplets. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, cohort study was performed on triplet deliveries in the United States that occurred in the period perinatal and 1995-1998. The study group comprised mothers aged > or =40 years (older mothers), who were compared to mothers aged 30-39 (mature mothers), 20-29 (younger mothers) and mothers <20 (teenagers). We computed risks of mortality associated with PROM within each maternal age category using generalized estimating equations to take into account both intracluster and intercluster sources of variation. RESULTS: The risk of stillbirth and of neonatal and perinatal mortality related to PROM was highest among teenagers. In all circumstances, the risk of both intrauterine and extrauterine death resulting from PROM diminished progressively with increasing maternal age until age 40 and beyond, at which point the risk rose once more and produced a U shape. PROM triplets of older mothers had apparently higher mortality indices than did those of younger and mature mothers, although the risk difference did not show statistical significance for any of the mortality indices. Similarly, the proportion of preventable deaths if PROM could be averted demonstrated a U-shape, consistent with that of risk estimates. CONCLUSION: Premature rupture of membranes was associated with an increase risk of perinatal and infant mortality among triplets. Although older mothers demonstrated higher risk levels for all mortality indices in comparison to younger and mature mothers, our findings did not reach statistical significance.