The impact of a provider motivational interviewing-based training on chronic pain management in a federally-qualified health center.

BACKGROUND: While the issue of opioid misuse is very complex, pharmacists have a unique opportunity to participate in interprofessional, team-based care. Motivational interviewing (MI) has been shown to be effective in chronic disease management and could improve patient engagement and chronic pain outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of an MI-based provider training on changes in chronic pain management prescribing and on provider and patient perceptions. METHODS: Providers participated in a pharmacist-led, 4-session educational intervention covering the CDC opioid prescribing guidelines, pain management, clinical pearls, and MI. Providers were then asked to implement the training in patient appointments for chronic pain management and refer appropriate patients for follow-up on goals. In the follow-up, student pharmacists called patients twice monthly for three months using MI. To address the primary outcome, the number of opioid prescriptions, morphine daily equivalents, and naloxone prescriptions were recorded and compared from the electronic medical record for the year preceding and following the intervention. Patients and providers completed surveys to assess the impact of these interventions. RESULTS: Providers (n = 11) reported increased confidence in MI from baseline to 12 months following the intervention but no change in satisfaction. Patients (n = 19) were able to set and accomplish 20 goals throughout the phone call intervention. Meanwhile, the number of opioid prescriptions significantly decreased from 569 to 368 prescriptions per year before and after the intervention, respectively. Morphine daily equivalents per prescription decreased from 26.8 to 26.4 for the year before versus the year following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: MI interventions for providers and patients may positively impact goal setting and opioid prescribing. However, MI alone may not successfully address provider satisfaction and patient physical functioning. Pain management is an area that may benefit from a multi-faceted, interprofessional approach.

A Survey of Hospice and Palliative Care Physicians Regarding Palliative Sedation Practices.

CONTEXT: Patients nearing the end of life may experience symptoms that are refractory to standard therapeutic options. Physicians may consider palliative sedation to relieve intolerable suffering. There is limited clinical literature regarding preferred medications for palliative sedation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the preferred medications physicians use when implementing palliative sedation. METHODS: An Internet-based, cross-sectional survey of hospice and palliative care physicians in the United States. RESULTS: A link to the survey was e-mailed to 3130 physician members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, of which 381 physicians completed the survey. Physicians were not required to answer all questions. Nearly all (n = 335, 99%) respondents indicated that palliative sedation may be used (acceptable by 73% [n = 248] for refractory symptoms and acceptable by 26% [n = 87] only for imminently dying patients). Seventy-nine percent (n = 252) believed that opioids should not be used to induce palliative sedation but should be continued to provide pain control. Midazolam was the most commonly selected first-line choice for palliative sedation (n = 155, 42%). The most commonly reported second-line agents for the induction of palliative sedation were lorazepam, midazolam (for those who did not select midazolam as first-line agent), and phenobarbital with a reported preference of 20% (n = 49), 19% (n = 46), and 17% (n = 40), respectively. CONCLUSION: Of the physicians surveyed, 99% (n = 335) felt that palliative sedation is a reasonable treatment modality. Midazolam was considered a drug of choice for inducing and maintaining sedation, and opioids were continued for pain control.

Evaluation of Subcutaneous Phenobarbital Administration in Hospice Patients.

Phenobarbital is used in hospice and palliative care to treat refractory symptoms. In end-of-life care, Food and Drug Administration approved routes of administration may be unreasonable based on patients' status. In these cases, phenobarbital may be administered subcutaneously for symptom management. However, according to the American Hospital Formulary Service, subcutaneous administration of commercially available injectable phenobarbital is cautioned due to possible skin reactions. This study evaluates the tolerability of phenobarbital administered subcutaneously. Of 69 patients and 774 distinct subcutaneous phenobarbital injections, 2 site reactions were recorded (2.9% of patients; 0.3% of injections). Both were mild, grade 1 reactions. Each patient continued to receive subcutaneous phenobarbital via newly placed ports with no additional reactions. Based on these findings, phenobarbital appears to be well tolerated when administered subcutaneously.

Petroleum jelly (vaseline balls) for the treatment of constipation: a survey of hospice and palliative care practitioners.

Constipation is a common symptom at end of life, impacting patient outcomes and healthcare costs. Hospice and palliative care professionals often use practices based on anecdotal evidence. One such intervention is an oral preparation of petroleum jelly (OPJ), referred to as "Vaseline balls." This survey was designed to collect information regarding healthcare practitioners' knowledge and attitudes toward the use of OPJ for the management of constipation in hospice and palliative care. An online survey was distributed to physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, and pharmacists who work with hospice and palliative care patients. A total of 67% (n=237/353) of responders reported being familiar with the use of OPJ. Results indicate there is a need for further clinical research on the use of OPJ to guide practice.

Evaluation of atropine 1% ophthalmic solution administered sublingually for the management of terminal respiratory secretions.

Terminal respiratory secretions (TRS) or "death rattle" is a common symptom in the dying patient. Current practice for the prevention and treatment of TRS involves the use of oral, sublingual, transdermal, or parenteral anticholinergic medications. A retrospective chart review of patients admitted to a hospice inpatient unit for terminal care and treated with sublingual atropine 1% ophthalmic drops for TRS was conducted. A total of 19 of 22 patients treated with atropine had documented reduction or resolution of TRS. This study suggests that atropine 1% ophthalmic drops administered sublingually are a reasonable option for the management of TRS. Problematic cardiac or central nervous system symptoms were not found in the present study. Results should aid hospice programs who are seeking guidance on the management of TRS with atropine 1% ophthalmic drops.

Chlorpromazine bioavailability from a topical gel formulation in volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Symptom management medications are often compounded into topical gel formulations providing an alternative route of administration for hospice and palliative care patients. Though commonly used, transdermal absorption and bioavailability studies of these gel products are lacking. Chlorpromazine was studied because it is FDA approved for treatment of nausea and vomiting and is used off-label for treatment of agitation and delirium. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine the transdermal absorption of chlorpromazine PLO gel in healthy adults. METHODS: Twenty-five milligrams of chlorpromazine in PLO gel was applied to 10 subjects' wrists and 100 mg was applied to 1 subject's wrist. Blood draws were completed preapplication and 1, 2, and 4 hours postapplication. This single-center unblinded study recruited healthy adults between 18 and 70 years of age. Participants were not pregnant, did not have an allergy to any component of the study medication, and were not taking a phenothiazine medication. RESULTS: Chlorpromazine was undetected in any of the 11 subjects' blood samples. LIMITATIONS: There is an assumption of equivalent medication absorption in healthy patients and palliative care or hospice patients. CONCLUSION: Rapid relief of symptoms at end of life is essential. Chlorpromazine in PLO gel may not be an effective treatment option since blood levels were undetectable at 1, 2, and 4 hours after topical application.