Medical Record Documentation About Opioid Tapering: Examining Benefit-to-Harm Framework and Patient Engagement.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend that clinicians make decisions about opioid tapering for patients with chronic pain using a benefit-to-harm framework and engaging patients. Studies have not examined clinician documentation about opioid tapering using this framework. DESIGN AND SETTING: Thematic and content analysis of clinician documentation about opioid tapering in patients' medical records in a large academic health system. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for patients aged 18 or older, without cancer, who were prescribed stable doses of long-term opioid therapy between 10/2015 and 10/2016 then experienced an opioid taper (dose reduction ≥30%) between 10/2016 and 10/2017. Inductive thematic analysis of clinician documentation within six months of taper initiation was conducted to understand rationale for taper, and deductive content analysis was conducted to determine the frequencies of a priori elements of a benefit-to-harm framework. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of 39 patients' records revealed 1) documented rationale for tapering prominently cited potential harms of continuing opioids, rather than observed harms or lack of benefits; 2) patient engagement was variable and disagreement with tapering was prominent. Content analysis found no patients' records with explicit mention of benefit-to-harm assessments. Benefits of continuing opioids were mentioned in 56% of patients' records, observed harms were mentioned in 28%, and potential harms were mentioned in 90%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, documentation of opioid tapering focused on potential harms of continuing opioids, indicated variable patient engagement, and lacked a complete benefit-to-harm framework. Future initiatives should develop standardized ways of incorporating a benefit-to-harm framework and patient engagement into clinician decisions and documentation about opioid tapering.

Ultrasound measures of muscle thickness may be superior to strength testing in adults with knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of muscle strength as performed routinely with a dynamometer may be limited by important factors such as pain during muscle contraction. Few studies have compared formal strength testing with ultrasound to measure muscle bulk in adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We investigated the muscle bulk of lower limb muscles in adults with knee OA using quantitative ultrasound. We analyzed the relationship between patient reported function and the muscle bulk of hip adductors, hip abductors, knee extensors and ankle plantarflexors. We further correlated muscle bulk measures with joint torques calculated with a hand held dynamometer. We hypothesized that ultrasound muscle bulk would have high levels of interrater reliability and correlate more strongly with pain and function than strength measured by a dynamometer. 23 subjects with unilateral symptomatic knee OA completed baseline questionnaires including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Lower Extremity Activity Scale. Joint torque was measured with a dynamometer and muscle bulk was assessed with ultrasound. RESULTS: Higher ultrasound measured muscle bulk was correlated with less pain in all muscle groups. When comparing muscle bulk and torque measures, ultrasound-measured muscle bulk of the quadriceps was more strongly correlated with measures of pain and function than quadriceps isometric strength measured with a dynamometer. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound is a feasible method to assess muscle bulk of lower limb muscles in adults with knee OA, with high levels of interrater reliability, and correlates negatively with patient reported function. Compared with use of a hand held dynamometer to measure muscle function, ultrasound may be a superior modality.