A Comparison of Veterans with Problematic Opioid Use Identified through Natural Language Processing of Clinical Notes versus Using Diagnostic Codes.

Opioid use disorder is known to be under-coded as a diagnosis, yet problematic opioid use can be documented in clinical notes, which are included in electronic health records. We sought to identify problematic opioid use from a full range of clinical notes and compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients identified as having problematic opioid use exclusively in clinical notes to patients documented through ICD opioid use disorder diagnostic codes. We developed and applied a natural language processing (NLP) tool that combines rule-based pattern analysis and a trained support vector machine to the clinical notes of a patient cohort (n = 222,371) from two Veteran Affairs service regions to identify patients with problematic opioid use. We also used a set of ICD diagnostic codes to identify patients with opioid use disorder from the same cohort. The NLP tool achieved 96.6% specificity, 90.4% precision/PPV, 88.4% sensitivity/recall, and 94.4% accuracy on unseen test data. NLP exclusively identified 57,331 patients; 6997 patients had positive ICD code identifications. Patients exclusively identified through NLP were more likely to be women. Those identified through ICD codes were more likely to be male, younger, have concurrent benzodiazepine prescriptions, more comorbidities, and more care encounters, and were less likely to be married. Patients in both these groups had substantially elevated comorbidity levels compared with patients not documented through either method as experiencing problematic opioid use. Clinicians may be reluctant to code for opioid use disorder. It is therefore incumbent on the healthcare team to search for documentation of opioid concerns within clinical notes.

A national study of clinical discussions about cannabis use among Veteran patients prescribed opioids.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration tracks urine drug tests (UDTs) among patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) and recommends discussing the health effects of cannabis use. OBJECTIVE: To determine the occurrence of cannabis-related discussions between providers and patients on LTOT during six months following UDT positive for cannabis, and examine factors associated with documenting cannabis use. DESIGN: We identified patients prescribed LTOT with a UDT positive for cannabis in 2019. We developed a text-processing tool to extract discussions around cannabis use from their charts. SUBJECTS: Twelve thousand seventy patients were included. Chart review was conducted on a random sample of 1,946 patients. MAIN MEASURES: The presence of a cannabis term in the chart suggesting documented cannabis use or cannabis-related discussions. Content of those discussions was extracted in a subset of patients. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between patient factors, including state of residence legal status, with documentation of cannabis use. KEY RESULTS: Among the 12,070 patients, 65.8% (N = 7,948) had a cannabis term, whereas 34.1% (N = 4,122) of patients lacked a cannabis term, suggesting that no documentation of cannabis use or discussion between provider and patient took place. Among the subset of patients who had a discussion documented, 47% related to cannabis use for medical reasons, 35% related to a discussion of VA policy or legal issues, and 17% related to a discussion specific to medical risks or harm reduction strategies. In adjusted analyses, residents of states with legalized recreational cannabis were less likely to have any cannabis-related discussion compared to patients in non-legal states [OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.82]. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of LTOT patients did not have documentation of cannabis use in the chart in the 6 months following a positive UDT for cannabis. Discussions related to the medical risks of cannabis use or harm reduction strategies were uncommon.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

ABSTRACT: In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

National review of acute pain service utilization, models of care, and clinical practices within the Veterans Health Administration.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest healthcare network in the USA and has been a national leader in opioid safety for acute pain management. However, detailed information on the availability and characteristics of acute pain services within its facilities is lacking. We designed this project to assess the current state of acute pain services within the VHA. METHODS: A 50-question electronic survey developed by the VHA national acute pain medicine committee was emailed to anesthesiology service chiefs at 140 VHA surgical facilities within the USA. Data collected were analyzed by facility complexity level and service characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 140 VHA surgical facilities contacted, 84 (60%) completed the survey. Thirty-nine (46%) responding facilities had an acute pain service. The presence of an acute pain service was associated with higher facility complexity level designation. The most common staffing model was 2.0 full-time equivalents, which typically included at least one physician. Services performed most by formal acute pain programs included peripheral nerve catheters, inpatient consult services, and ward ketamine infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread efforts to promote opioid safety and improve pain management, the availability of dedicated acute pain services within the VHA is not universal. Higher complexity programs are more likely to have acute pain services, which may reflect differential resource distribution, but the barriers to implementation have not yet been fully explored.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain: Synopsis of the 2021 US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline.

ABSTRACT: Low back pain is a significant issue in the US Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense populations as well as the general US population at large. This type of pain can be distressing to those who experience its effects, leading patients to seek relief of their symptoms. In 2022, leadership within the US Department of Veterans Affairs and US Department of Defense approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the management of low back pain. The guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for assessing and managing low back pain. Development of the guideline included a systematic evidence review, which was guided by 12 key questions. A multidisciplinary team, which included clinical stakeholders, reviewed the evidence that was retrieved and developed 39 recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. The scope of the clinical practice guideline is broad; however, the authors have focused on key recommendations that are important for clinicians in the evaluation and nonoperative treatment of low back pain, including pharmacologic therapies and both noninvasive and invasive nonpharmacologic treatments.

Changes in opioid prescribing in veterans with headache during the COVID-19 pandemic: A regression discontinuity in time analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine changes in opioid prescribing among veterans with headaches during the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by comparing the stay-at-home phase (March 15 to May 30, 2020) and the reopening phase (May 31 to December 31, 2020). BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing for chronic pain has declined substantially since 2016; however, changes in opioid prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic among veterans with headaches remain unknown. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized regression discontinuity in time and difference-in-differences design to analyze veterans aged ≥18 years with a previous diagnosis of headache disorders and an outpatient visit to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during the study period. We measured the weekly number of opioid prescriptions, the number of days supplied, the daily dose in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), and the number of prescriptions with ≥50 morphine equivalent daily doses (MEDD). RESULTS: A total of 81,376 veterans were analyzed with 589,950 opioid prescriptions. The mean (SD) age was 51.6 (13.5) years, 57,242 (70.3%) were male, and 53,464 (65.7%) were White. During the pre-pandemic period, 323.6 opioid prescriptions (interquartile range 292.1-325.8) were dispensed weekly, with an median (IQR) of 24.1 (24.0-24.4) days supplied and 31.8 (31.2-32.5) MMEs. Transition to stay-at-home was associated with a 7.7% decrease in the number of prescriptions (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.077, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.866-0.984) and a 9.8% increase in days supplied (IRR 1.098, 95% CI 1.078-1.119). Similar trends were observed during the reopening period. Subgroup analysis among veterans on long-term opioid therapy also revealed 1.7% and 1.4% increases in days supplied during the stay-at-home (IRR 1.017, 95% CI 1.009-1.025) and reopening phase (IRR 1.014, 95% CI 1.007-1.021); however, changes in the total number of prescriptions, MME/day, or the number of prescriptions >50 MEDD were insignificant. CONCLUSION: Prescription opioid access was maintained for veterans within VHA during the pandemic. The de-escalation of opioid prescribing observed prior to the pandemic was not seen in our study.

Opioid use and opioid use disorder in mono and dual-system users of veteran affairs medical centers.

Introduction: Efforts to achieve opioid guideline concordant care may be undermined when patients access multiple opioid prescription sources. Limited data are available on the impact of dual-system sources of care on receipt of opioid medications. Objective: We examined whether dual-system use was associated with increased rates of new opioid prescriptions, continued opioid prescriptions and diagnoses of opioid use disorder (OUD). We hypothesized that dual-system use would be associated with increased odds for each outcome. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using Veterans Administration (VA) data from two facilities from 2015 to 2019, and included active patients, defined as Veterans who had at least one encounter in a calendar year (2015-2019). Dual-system use was defined as receipt of VA care as well as VA payment for community care (non-VA) services. Mono users were defined as those who only received VA services. There were 77,225 dual-system users, and 442,824 mono users. Outcomes were three binary measures: new opioid prescription, continued opioid prescription (i.e., received an additional opioid prescription), and OUD diagnosis (during the calendar year). We conducted a multivariate logistic regression accounting for the repeated observations on patient and intra-class correlations within patients. Results: Dual-system users were significantly younger than mono users, more likely to be women, and less likely to report white race. In adjusted models, dual-system users were significantly more likely to receive a new opioid prescription during the observation period [Odds ratio (OR) = 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.76-1.93], continue prescriptions (OR = 1.24, CI 1.22-1.27), and to receive an OUD diagnosis (OR = 1.20, CI 1.14-1.27). Discussion: The prevalence of opioid prescriptions has been declining in the US healthcare systems including VA, yet the prevalence of OUD has not been declining at the same rate. One potential problem is that detailed notes from non-VA visits are not immediately available to VA clinicians, and information about VA care is not readily available to non-VA sources. One implication of our findings is that better health system coordination is needed. Even though care was paid for by the VA and presumably closely monitored, dual-system users were more likely to have new and continued opioid prescriptions.

Research objectives and general considerations for pragmatic clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT statement.

ABSTRACT: Many questions regarding the clinical management of people experiencing pain and related health policy decision-making may best be answered by pragmatic controlled trials. To generate clinically relevant and widely applicable findings, such trials aim to reproduce elements of routine clinical care or are embedded within clinical workflows. In contrast with traditional efficacy trials, pragmatic trials are intended to address a broader set of external validity questions critical for stakeholders (clinicians, healthcare leaders, policymakers, insurers, and patients) in considering the adoption and use of evidence-based treatments in daily clinical care. This article summarizes methodological considerations for pragmatic trials, mainly concerning methods of fundamental importance to the internal validity of trials. The relationship between these methods and common pragmatic trials methods and goals is considered, recognizing that the resulting trial designs are highly dependent on the specific research question under investigation. The basis of this statement was an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) systematic review of methods and a consensus meeting. The meeting was organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership. The consensus process was informed by expert presentations, panel and consensus discussions, and a preparatory systematic review. In the context of pragmatic trials of pain treatments, we present fundamental considerations for the planning phase of pragmatic trials, including the specification of trial objectives, the selection of adequate designs, and methods to enhance internal validity while maintaining the ability to answer pragmatic research questions.

A national population-based study of cannabis use and correlates among U.S. veterans prescribed opioids in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is marketed as a treatment for pain. There is limited data on the prevalence of cannabis use and its correlates among Veterans prescribed opioids. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and correlates of cannabis use among Veterans prescribed opioids. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans with a urine drug test (UDT) from Primary Care 2014-2018, in 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. A total of 1,182,779 patients were identified with an opioid prescription within 90 days prior to UDT. MAIN MEASURES: Annual prevalence of cannabis positive UDT by state. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess associations of demographic factors, mental health conditions, substance use disorders, and pain diagnoses with cannabis positive UDT. RESULTS: Annual prevalence of cannabis positive UDT ranged from 8.5% to 9.7% during the study period, and in 2018 was 18.15% in Washington, D.C. and 10 states with legalized medical and recreational cannabis, 6.1% in Puerto Rico and 25 states with legalized medical cannabis, and 4.5% in non-legal states. Younger age, male sex, being unmarried, and marginal housing were associated with use (p < 0.001). Post-traumatic stress disorder (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.22, p < 0.001), opioid use disorder (AOR 1.14; CI 1.07-1.22, p < 0.001), alcohol use disorder or positive AUDIT-C (AOR 1.34; 95% CI 1.28-1.39, p < 0.001), smoking (AOR 2.58; 95% CI 2.49-2.66, p < 0.001), and other drug use disorders (AOR 1.15; 95% CI 1.03-1.29, p = 0.02) were associated with cannabis use. Positive UDT for amphetamines AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.26-1.58, p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.31-1.51, p < 0.001) and cocaine (AOR 2.04; 95% CI 1.75-2.36, p < 0.001) were associated with cannabis positive UDT. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use among Veterans prescribed opioids varied by state and by legalization status. Veterans with PTSD and substance use disorders were more likely to have cannabis positive UDT. Opioid-prescribed Veterans using cannabis may benefit from screening for these conditions, referral to treatment, and attention to opioid safety.

The Use of Opioids in the Management of Chronic Pain: Synopsis of the 2022 Updated U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline.

DESCRIPTION: In May 2022, leadership within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the use of opioids when managing chronic pain. This synopsis summarizes the recommendations that the authors believe are the most important to highlight. METHODS: In December 2020, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group assembled a team to update the 2017 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain. The guideline development team included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the National Academy of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline team developed key questions to guide a systematic evidence review that was done by an independent third party and distilled 20 recommendations for care using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The guideline team also created 3 one-page algorithms to help guide clinical decision making. This synopsis presents the recommendations and highlights selected recommendations on the basis of clinical relevance. RECOMMENDATIONS: This guideline is intended for clinicians who may be considering opioid therapy to manage patients with chronic pain. This synopsis reviews updated recommendations for the initiation and continuation of opioid therapy; dose, duration, and taper of opioids; screening, assessment, and evaluation; and risk mitigation. New additions are highlighted, including recommendations about the use of buprenorphine instead of full agonist opioids; assessing for behavioral health conditions and factors associated with higher risk for harm, such as pain catastrophizing; and the use of pain and opioid education to reduce the risk for prolonged opioid use for postsurgical pain.

Association of a Positive Drug Screening for Cannabis With Mortality and Hospital Visits Among Veterans Affairs Enrollees Prescribed Opioids.

Importance: Cannabis has been proposed as a therapeutic with potential opioid-sparing properties in chronic pain, and its use could theoretically be associated with decreased amounts of opioids used and decreased risk of mortality among individuals prescribed opioids. Objective: To examine the risks associated with cannabis use among adults prescribed opioid analgesic medications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted among individuals aged 18 years and older who had urine drug screening in 2014 to 2019 and received any prescription opioid in the prior 90 days or long-term opioid therapy (LTOT), defined as more than 84 days of the prior 90 days, through the Veterans Affairs health system. Data were analyzed from November 2020 through March 2022. Exposures: Biologically verified cannabis use from a urine drug screen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were 90-day and 180-day all-cause mortality. A composite outcome of all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, all-cause hospitalization, or all-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. Weights based on the propensity score were used to reduce confounding, and hazard ratios [HRs] were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Analyses were conducted among the overall sample of patients who received any prescription opioid in the prior 90 days and were repeated among those who received LTOT. Analyses were repeated among adults aged 65 years and older. Results: Among 297 620 adults treated with opioids, 30 514 individuals used cannabis (mean [SE] age, 57.8 [10.5] years; 28 784 [94.3%] men) and 267 106 adults did not (mean [SE] age, 62.3 [12.3] years; P < .001; 247 684 [92.7%] men; P < .001). Among all patients, cannabis use was not associated with increased all-cause mortality at 90 days (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92-1.22) or 180 days (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.10) but was associated with an increased hazard of the composite outcome at 90 days (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07) and 180 days (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06). Among 181 096 adults receiving LTOT, cannabis use was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality at 90 or 180 days but was associated with an increased hazard of the composite outcome at 90 days (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09) and 180 days (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09). Among 77 791 adults aged 65 years and older receiving LTOT, cannabis use was associated with increased 90-day mortality (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.17-2.04). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that cannabis use among adults receiving opioid analgesic medications was not associated with any change in mortality risk but was associated with a small increased risk of adverse outcomes and that short-term risks were higher among older adults receiving LTOT.

Medication Use Evaluation of High-Dose Long-Term Opioid De-prescribing in Multiple Veterans Affairs Medical Centers.

BACKGROUND: The Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) was implemented in 2013 to enhance the safe and appropriate use of opioids in the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Opioid use decreased nationally in subsequent years, but characterization of opioid de-prescribing practices has not been well established. OBJECTIVES: To describe changes in patient characteristics and patterns of de-prescribing since OSI implementation for opioid users at > 90 morphine equivalent daily dose for at least 90 days for those that discontinued opioids within the VA. DESIGN: Retrospective observational pre-post intervention medication use evaluation using VA data and electronic health records to identify differences in opioid de-prescribing between fiscal year 2013 (FY13; early OSI) and FY17 (late OSI). Reviewers' insights for local opioid management and de-prescribing practices collected through web-based post-data collection survey. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans prescribed high-dose long-term opioid therapy in FY13 and FY17 who subsequently discontinued opioids at 27 VA medical centers. MAIN MEASURES: Chart review data from local facility reviewers identified socioeconomic characteristics, opioid de-prescribing rationale (e.g., risk-benefit, diversion) and practices (e.g., rate of opioid discontinuation, taper monitoring activities, withdrawal monitoring), and outcomes following discontinuation. KEY RESULTS: Among 315 patients in FY13 and 322 patients in FY17 with opioid discontinuation, discontinuation rationale focused on diversion in FY13 and risk-benefit in FY17. Clinical pharmacists and pain management specialists had increased involvement in FY17 opioid discontinuations (36% versus 16%). Of all discontinuations, 56% of patients were tapered in FY13 versus 70% of patients in FY17. Tapering plans were longer in FY17 than in FY13 (163 days versus 65 days). Transitions to non-opioid pain therapy following opioid discontinuation were higher in FY17 compared to FY13 (70% versus 60%). CONCLUSIONS: Veterans discontinued from high-dose long-term opioids in FY17 were more optimally managed compared to those in FY13. Findings suggest improvements in opioid de-prescribing following OSI implementation, but interpretation is limited by study design.

Characteristics and Gender Differences of Headache in the Veterans Health Administration: A National Cohort Study, Fiscal Year 2008-2019.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: - To determine gender differences in headache types diagnosed, sociodemographic characteristics, military campaign and exposures, and healthcare utilization among United States (U.S.) Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS: - This study employed a retrospective cohort design to examine VHA Electronic Health Record (EHR) data. This cohort includes Veterans who had at least one visit for any headache between fiscal years 2008 and 2019. Headache diagnoses were classified into eight categories using International Classification of Disease, Clinical Modification codes. Demographics, military-related exposures, comorbidities, and type of provider(s) consulted were extracted from the EHR, and compared by gender. Age-adjusted incidence and prevalence rates of medically diagnosed headache disorders were calculated separately for each type of headache. RESULTS: - Of the 1,524,960 Veterans with headache diagnoses included in the cohort, 82.8% were men. Compared with women, men were more often white (70.4% vs 56.7%), older (52.0±16.8 vs 41.9±13.0 years), with higher rates of traumatic brain injury (2.9% vs 1.1%) and post-traumatic stress disorder (23.7% vs 21.7%), and lower rates of military sexual trauma (3.2% vs 33.7%; p<0.001 for all). Age adjusted incidence rate of headache of any type was higher among women. Migraine and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias rates were most stable over time. Men were more likely than women to be diagnosed with headache not-otherwise-specified (77.4% vs 67.7%) and have higher incidence rates of headaches related to trauma (3.4% vs 1.9% [post-traumatic]; 5.5% vs 5.1% [post-whiplash]; p <0.001 for all). Men also had fewer headache types diagnosed (mean ± standard deviation; 1.3 ± 0.6 vs 1.5 ± 0.7), had fewer encounters for headache/year (0.8 ± 1.2 vs 1.2 ± 1.6) and fewer visits to headache specialists (20.8% vs 27.4% p <0.001 for all), compared to women. Emergency Department utilization for headache care was high for both genders and higher for women compared to men (20.3% vs 22.9%; p<0.001). DISCUSSION: - Among Veterans with headache diagnoses, important gender differences exist for men and women Veterans receiving headache care within VHA regarding sociodemographic characteristics, headache diagnoses, military exposure, and headache healthcare utilization. The findings have potential implications for providers and the healthcare system caring for Veterans living with headache.

Telehealth and Rural-Urban Differences in Receipt of Pain Care in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: Examine changes in specialty pain utilization in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) after establishing a virtual interdisciplinary pain team (TelePain). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A single VHA healthcare system, 2015-2019. SUBJECTS: 33,169 patients with chronic pain-related diagnoses. METHODS: We measured specialty pain utilization (in-person and telehealth) among patients with moderate to severe chronic pain. We used generalized estimating equations to test the association of time (pre- or post-TelePain) and rurality on receipt of specialty pain care. RESULTS: Among patients with moderate to severe chronic pain, the reach of specialty pain care increased from 11.1% to 16.2% in the pre- to post-TelePain periods (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26-1.49). This was true of both urban patients (aOR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.53-1.71) and rural patients (aOR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.99-1.36), although the difference for rural patients was not statistically significant. Among rural patients who received specialty pain care, a high percentage of the visits were delivered by telehealth (nearly 12% in the post-TelePain period), much higher than among urban patients (3%). CONCLUSIONS: We observed increased use of specialty pain services among all patients with chronic pain. Although rural patients did not achieve the same degree of access and utilization overall as urban patients, their use of pain telehealth increased substantially and may have substituted for in-person visits. Targeted implementation efforts may be needed to further increase the reach of services to patients living in areas with limited specialty pain care options.

Development and field testing of primary care screening tools for harms of long-term opioid therapy continuation and tapering to discontinuation: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite calls for screening tools to help providers monitor long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) harms, and identify patients likely to experience harms of discontinuation, such screening tools do not yet exist. Current assessment tools are infeasible to use routinely in primary care and focus mainly on behaviours suggestive of opioid use disorder to the exclusion of other potential harms. This paper describes a study protocol to develop two screening tools that comprise one integrated instrument, Screen to Evaluate and Treat (SET). SET1 will indicate if LTOT may be harmful to continue (yes or no), and SET2 will indicate if tapering to discontinue opioids may be harmful to initiate (yes or no). Patients receiving LTOT who screen positive on the SET tools should receive subsequent additional assessment. SET will give providers methods that are feasible to implement routinely to facilitate more intensive and comprehensive monitoring of patients on LTOT and decision-making about discontinuation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will develop the screening tools, SET1 and SET2, concurrently. Tool development will be done in stages: (1) comprehensive literature searches to yield an initial item pool for domains covered by each screening tool; (2) qualitative item analyses using interviews, expert review and cognitive interviewing, with subsequent item revision, to yield draft versions of each tool; and (3) field testing of the draft screening tools to assess internal consistency, test-retest reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Boards of Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco for the VA Palo Alto Health Care System, and the VA San Francisco Healthcare System, respectively. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed manuscripts and presentations at research conferences.

Opportunities for improving opioid disposal practices in the Veterans Health Administration.

PURPOSE: The potentially vast supply of unused opioids in Americans' homes has long been a public health concern. We conducted a needs assessment of how Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities address and manage disposal of unused opioid medications to identify opportunities for improvement. METHODS: We used rapid qualitative content analysis methods with team consensus to synthesize findings. Data were collected in 2 waves: (1) semistructured interviews with 19 providers in October 2019 and (2) structured questions to 21 providers in March to April of 2020 addressing how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed disposal priorities. RESULTS: While many diverse strategies have been tried in the VA, we found limited standardization of advice on opioid disposal and practices nationally. Providers offered the following recommendations: target specific patient scenarios for enhanced disposal efforts, emphasize mail-back envelopes, keep recommendations to providers and patients consistent and reinforce existing guidance, explore virtual modalities to monitor disposal activity, prioritize access to viable disposal strategies, and transition from pull to push communication. These themes were identified in the fall of 2019 and remained salient in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: A centralized VA national approach could include proactive communication with patients and providers, interventions tailored to specific settings and populations, and facilitated access to disposal options. All of the above strategies are feasible in the context of an extended period of social distancing.