Pain Medicine Fellowship Video Interviews: A COVID-19 Trend or Here to Stay?

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a shift to a video format for pain medicine fellowship interviews for the 2021-2022 academic year, which represented a major change in the fellowship interview paradigm. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess the experience of a video-only format in place of in-person interviews for Pain Medicine fellowship program directors and applicants after the 2020 fellowship interview season to determine the feasibility for continuation beyond COVID-19 travel restrictions. STUDY DESIGN: Survey via Qualtrics. SETTING: Academic pain medicine programs. METHODS: A consortium of program directors converged to discuss methods for determining the effectiveness and future direction of the video format for pain medicine fellowship interviews. Two surveys were formulated, one targeting pain medicine fellowship program directors and the other for candidates interviewing for the year 2021-2022. RESULTS: For applicants, 55 out of 170 responded for a response rate of 32.3%, and for program directors, 38 out of 95 responded for a response rate of 40%. Of the applicants, 45.7% stated that they would prefer video interviews, whereas 27.3% of program directors preferred video interviews. Savings of time and money were the most common reason for preferring video interviews. LIMITATIONS: The number of pain fellowship applicants invited was limited to those who interviewed at a subset of pain fellowships, which may not have been representative of all pain fellow applicants. CONCLUSIONS: The video format for pain medicine fellowship interviews was viewed positively by both candidates and program directors. We suspect that the video format alone or as a part of a hybrid model will become a routine method for the interview process in the future, given its time and cost benefits.

Validation of an oncology-specific opioid risk calculator in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend that providers risk-stratify patients with cancer before prescribing opioids. Prior research has demonstrated that a simple cancer opioid risk score might help identify to patients with cancer at the time of diagnosis with a high likelihood of long-term posttreatment opioid use. This current project validates this cancer opioid risk score in a generalizable, population-based cohort of elderly cancer survivors. METHODS: This study identified 44,932 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer who had received local therapy. Longitudinal opioid use was ascertained from Medicare Part D data. A risk score was calculated for each patient, and patients were categorized into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups on the basis of the predicted probability of persistent opioid use. Model discrimination was assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: In the study cohort, 5.2% of the patients were chronic opioid users 1 to 2 years after the initiation of cancer treatment. The majority of the patients (64%) were at low risk and had a 1.2% probability of long-term opioid use. Moderate-risk patients (33% of the cohort) had a 5.6% probability of long-term opioid use. High-risk patients (3.5% of the cohort) had a 75% probability of long-term opioid use. The opioid risk score had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.869. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that a cancer opioid risk score could accurately identify individuals with a high likelihood of long-term opioid use in a large, generalizable cohort of cancer survivors. Future research should focus on the implementation of these scores into clinical practice and how this could affect prescriber behavior and patient outcomes. LAY SUMMARY: A novel 5-question clinical decision tool allows physicians treating patients with cancer to accurately predict which patients will persistently be using opioid medications after completing therapy.

Opioid prescribing practices in patients undergoing surgery for oral cavity cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Opioids have been overprescribed after general and orthopedic surgeries, but prescribing patterns have not been reported for head and neck surgery. The objectives of this retrospective review are to describe postoperative opioid prescriptions after oral cancer surgery and determine which patients receive higher amounts. METHODS: A single institution retrospective review was performed for 81 adults with oral cavity tumors undergoing surgery. Opioid prescriptions upon discharge were reported in daily oral morphine equivalents (OME). High opioids were defined as > 90 mg daily and > 200 mg total, commensurate with U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention and state guidelines. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate factors associated with high opioids. RESULTS: The median number of doses dispensed was 30 (interquartile range [IQR] 30-45; range 3-120). The median daily dose was 30 mg (IQR 20-45 mg; range 15-240 mg). Five patients (6%) received higher than the recommended daily dose. The median total dispensed amount was 225 mg (IQR 150-250 mg; range 15-1200 mg). Fifty-one (63%) received greater than the recommended total dose. On multivariable logistic regression, advanced tumor stage (odds ratio [OR] 11.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-109.4; P = 0.034) and inpatient pain scores (OR 1.3 per 1-unit increase; 95% CI 1.0-1.7; P = 0.039) were associated with receiving high total opioids after surgery. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients received greater than the recommended 200 mg total OME. Advanced stage and higher inpatient pain scores were associated with receiving more opioids for discharge. Consensus-driven analgesic plans are needed to reduce excess opioids after discharge following head and neck surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:2361-2366, 2018.