Orlando Veterans Affairs Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) Very High Risk Interdisciplinary Team Review: A Brief Report.

BACKGROUND: Compared to the general population, Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients have higher rates of mental illness, chronic pain, and substance use disorders (SUD), conditions that increase risk for opioid-related adverse events. VHA developed the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) and mandated case reviews by an interdisciplinary team (IDT) for patients identified as very high risk, a process implemented and led by clinical pharmacist practitioners at the Orlando Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (OVAHCS) in 2018. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and describe the implementation and process for IDT reviews of patients identified as very high risk by the STORM clinical decision support tool at OVAHCS. METHODS: A single center, retrospective, observational chart review was conducted. Veterans reviewed by the STORM IDT between January to September 2018 were reviewed for change in Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD), naloxone, non-opioid analgesics, medications for SUD, benzodiazepines, engagement with clinical services (e.g., mental health, SUD, pain clinic), and overdose or suicide attempts in the year prior versus the year after IDT review. The frequency of follow-up IDT reviews was evaluated. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were identified. Four were excluded due to non-opioid related death within 12 months after review. The average baseline MEDD was 82.2mg (range 10 - 496mg) and average 12 months after review was 7.5mg (range 0 - 67.5mg), a decrease of 74.7mg, or 90.9% reduction. An increase in medications for SUD (3 patients; 23%), SUD engagement (3 to 6 patients), and urine drug tests was observed (79% increase). Benzodiazepine use decreased by 50%. CONCLUSION: This report provides insight on the IDT case review process at OVAHCS, a process that may vary widely across facilities. A reduction in MEDD, increase in SUD treatment, and improved risk mitigation was observed. The central role of clinical pharmacy and expanded process for continued follow-up warrants further study.

Towards global model generalizability: independent cross-site feature evaluation for patient-level risk prediction models using the OHDSI network.

BACKGROUND: Predictive models show promise in healthcare, but their successful deployment is challenging due to limited generalizability. Current external validation often focuses on model performance with restricted feature use from the original training data, lacking insights into their suitability at external sites. Our study introduces an innovative methodology for evaluating features during both the development phase and the validation, focusing on creating and validating predictive models for post-surgery patient outcomes with improved generalizability. METHODS: Electronic health records (EHRs) from 4 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Finland, and Korea) were mapped to the OMOP Common Data Model (CDM), 2008-2019. Machine learning (ML) models were developed to predict post-surgery prolonged opioid use (POU) risks using data collected 6 months before surgery. Both local and cross-site feature selection methods were applied in the development and external validation datasets. Models were developed using Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) tools and validated on separate patient cohorts. RESULTS: Model development included 41 929 patients, 14.6% with POU. The external validation included 31 932 (UK), 23 100 (US), 7295 (Korea), and 3934 (Finland) patients with POU of 44.2%, 22.0%, 15.8%, and 21.8%, respectively. The top-performing model, Lasso logistic regression, achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.75 during local validation and 0.69 (SD = 0.02) (averaged) in external validation. Models trained with cross-site feature selection significantly outperformed those using only features from the development site through external validation (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Using EHRs across four countries mapped to the OMOP CDM, we developed generalizable predictive models for POU. Our approach demonstrates the significant impact of cross-site feature selection in improving model performance, underscoring the importance of incorporating diverse feature sets from various clinical settings to enhance the generalizability and utility of predictive healthcare models.

Physician perspective on the implementation of risk mitigation strategies when prescribing opioid medications: a qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the physician perspective on the barriers and facilitators of implementing nine different opioid risk mitigation strategies (RMS) when prescribing opioid medications. METHODS: We created and dispersed a cross-sectional online survey through the Qualtrics© data collection platform among a nationwide sample of physicians licensed to practice medicine in the United States who have prescribed an opioid medication within the past year. The responses were analyzed using a deductive thematic analysis approach based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ensure a holistic approach to identifying the barriers and facilitators for each RMS assessed. In concordance with this method, the themes and codes for the thematic analysis were defined prior to the analysis. The five domains within the CFIR were used as themes and the 39 nested constructs were treated as the codes. Two members of the research team independently coded the transcripts and discussed points of disagreement until consensus was reached. All analyses were conducted in ATLAS.ti© V7. RESULTS: The completion rate for this survey was 85.1% with 273 participant responses eligible for analysis. Intercoder reliability was calculated to be 82%. Deductive thematic analysis yielded 2,077 descriptions of factors affecting implementation of the nine RMS. The most salient code across all RMS was Knowledge and Beliefs about the Intervention, which refers to individuals' attitudes towards and value placed on the intervention. Patient Needs and Resources, a code referring to the extent to which patient needs are known and prioritized by the organization, also emerged as a salient code. The physicians agreed that the patient perspective on the issue is vital to the uptake of each of the RMS. CONCLUSIONS: This deductive thematic analysis identified key points for actionable intervention across the nine RMS assessed and established the importance of patient concordance with physicians when deciding on a course of treatment.

Opioid use disorder in two samples of the Lebanese population: scale validation and correlation with sleep and mood disorders.

BACKGROUND: The revised Opioid Risk Tool (ORT-OUD) is a brief, self-report scale designed to provide clinicians with a simple, validated method to screen for the risk of developing an Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) in patients without a prior history of substance abuse. This study aimed to translate and validate the Arabic version of ORT-OUD in the Lebanese population and assess its clinical validity in a sample of patients with OUD. METHODS: This cross-sectional study in the Lebanese population used several validated scales to assess the risk of OUD, including the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Other tools evaluated chronotype and sleep and mood disturbances. Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation was applied to assess ORT-OUD construct validity. Convergent validity with the Arabic version of ASSIST was evaluated. The ORT-OUD criterion validity was then assessed in a clinical sample of patients with OUD. RESULTS: This study included 581 participants. The prevalence of the OUD risk in the Lebanese population using the ORT-OUD scale and the ASSIST-opioids scale was estimated at 14.5% and 6.54%, respectively. No items of the ORT-OUD were removed; all items converged over a solution of four factors with an eigenvalue > 1, explaining a total of 68.2% of the variance (Cronbach's alpha = 0.648). The correlation coefficients between the ORT-OUD total score and ASSIST subscales were as follows: ASSIST-opioids (r = 0.174; p = < 0.001), ASSIST-sedatives (r = 0.249; p < 0.001), and ASSIST-alcohol (r = 0.161; p = < 0.001). ORT-OUD clinical validation showed a correlation with ASSIST-opioids (r = 0.251; p = 0.093) and ASSIST-sedatives (r = 0.598; p < 0.001). Higher ORT-OUD scores were associated with a family and personal history of alcohol and substance consumption and higher insomnia and anxiety scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to validate the Arabic version of ORT-OUD in the Lebanese population, an essential step towards improving the detection and management of OUD in this population.

Automated opioid risk scores: a case for machine learning-induced epistemic injustice in healthcare.

Artificial intelligence-based (AI) technologies such as machine learning (ML) systems are playing an increasingly relevant role in medicine and healthcare, bringing about novel ethical and epistemological issues that need to be timely addressed. Even though ethical questions connected to epistemic concerns have been at the center of the debate, it is going unnoticed how epistemic forms of injustice can be ML-induced, specifically in healthcare. I analyze the shortcomings of an ML system currently deployed in the USA to predict patients' likelihood of opioid addiction and misuse (PDMP algorithmic platforms). Drawing on this analysis, I aim to show that the wrong inflicted on epistemic agents involved in and affected by these systems' decision-making processes can be captured through the lenses of Miranda Fricker's account of hermeneutical injustice. I further argue that ML-induced hermeneutical injustice is particularly harmful due to what I define as an automated hermeneutical appropriation from the side of the ML system. The latter occurs if the ML system establishes meanings and shared hermeneutical resources without allowing for human oversight, impairing understanding and communication practices among stakeholders involved in medical decision-making. Furthermore and very much crucially, an automated hermeneutical appropriation can be recognized if physicians are strongly limited in their possibilities to safeguard patients from ML-induced hermeneutical injustice. Overall, my paper should expand the analysis of ethical issues raised by ML systems that are to be considered epistemic in nature, thus contributing to bridging the gap between these two dimensions in the ongoing debate.

Use of Predictive Analytics to Identify Unhealthy Opioid Use and Guide Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to use the newly developed Opioid Risk Stratification Tool to identify individuals who may be at risk for unhealthy opioid use and to examine the impact of applying a mailing and engagement intervention to this population and their prescribers, with the goal of reducing high-risk prescribing behaviors, opioid medication use, and mortality rates. METHODS: A nonrandomized controlled study was conducted with members from two Medicaid managed care organizations. In both the intervention (N=131) and control (N=187) groups, an algorithm identified members at moderate to high risk for hazardous opioid use. Members at increased risk in the intervention group and their prescribers received a letter from the managed care organization, and members still at risk 3 months after the mailing were contacted by a care coordinator. Individuals in the control group were not contacted. Medicaid claims data were used to compare opioid use and prescribing practices between groups before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Individuals in the intervention group were less likely to have any opioid prescription postintervention compared with those in the control group (OR=0.55, p<0.001), and the intervention group had a greater reduction in the number of individuals with concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions (OR=0.49, p=0.042). Practices such as multiple opioid prescriptions and multiple prescribers of opioids were not affected by the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention targeting individuals at risk for hazardous opioid use was associated with a reduction in some high-risk prescribing practices. Future research should determine the ideal mix of interventions to reduce as many risk factors as possible.

Standard Naloxone Prescribing for Palliative Care Cancer Patients on Opioid Therapy: A Single-Site Quality Improvement Pilot to Assess Attitudes and Access.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on when to offer naloxone to cancer patients on opioid therapy. MEASURES: We assessed patient and clinician attitudes on naloxone education (done via surveys at initial and follow up visits) and prescribing rates (via chart reviews) at a single ambulatory palliative care practice. Pharmacy records assessed naloxone dispense rates. INTERVENTION: During a three-month period, all new patients receiving opioid therapy were offered naloxone. Standardized educational materials on opioid safety and naloxone use were created and shared by clinical team. OUTCOMES: Naloxone prescribing rates increased from 5% to 66%. 92% (n = 23) of clinicians reported education/prescribing took ≤ five minutes, and 100% reported either a positive or neutral impact on the encounter. A total of 81% (n = 25) of patients reported no increased worry about opioid use, 68% (n = 21) felt safer with naloxone, and 97% rated the encounter as neutral or positive. 88% (n = 37) of prescriptions were dispensed and 67% of patients (n = 16) paid <$10. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: Opioid safety education and naloxone prescribing can be done quickly and is well-received by clinicians and patients.

Opioid risk stratification in the community pharmacy: The utility of the Opioid Risk Tool.

OBJECTIVE: The objective for this paper is to report on the utility of the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) to identify patients at elevated risk for opioid misuse and deliver medication safety-related services to them. Patient characteristics based on ORT risk stratification are also described. METHODS: Data from patients screened from September 17, 2018 to May 12, 2021 were descriptively evaluated for distribution of ORT scores, characteristics of patients stratified by ORT score, and services delivered to patients based on ORT score. The ORT generates a score from 0 to 26, with scores of 0-3, 4-7, and 8 or higher representing low, moderate, and high risk of opioid use disorder, respectively. Based upon screening results, pharmacists provided patient-specific education and interventions. RESULTS: A total of 6,460 patients were evaluated. Low, moderate, and high ORT scores were found among 87.5, 8.2 and 3.9% of the patients receiving opioids, respectively. Males comprised 46.1% of the patients, and 27.7% of the patients had received a prior opioid prescription in the last 60 days. As a result of risk stratification, the pharmacist explained opioid use disorder to 18.8, 36.1, and 47.0% of patients with low, moderate and high ORT scores, respectively (p < .001). High ORT scores were significantly associated with the pharmacist introducing the patient to community support services (OR = 2.35), the pharmacist having contacted their provider (OR = 6.41), male gender (OR = 2.06), and having taken an opioid in the last 60 days (OR = 1.76). CONCLUSIONS: The ORT is a useful tool for opioid risk stratification of patients receiving opioid medications in the community pharmacy setting. Such stratification allows the pharmacist to provide individualized services to patients based on their risk profile.

An Observational Study on the Use of a Patient Navigator to Help Improve Outcomes in Patients on Chronic Opioids.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, the prevalence of opioid use disorders has increased in recent years along with an attendant rise in the incidence of chronic pain disorders and prescription opioid use. Patient navigation services have been used to improve health outcomes in cancer and other chronic disease states, but it is unclear whether the implementation of patient navigation services can facilitate improved outcomes among patients receiving chronic opioid therapy. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients receiving chronic opioid therapy plus patient navigation services and those receiving chronic opioid therapy as a part of usual care. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational study. Consecutive patients receiving chronic opioid therapy were enrolled, with alternating assignments to patient navigation (n = 30) or usual care (n = 30). Participants in the patient navigation group received support from a non-physician, non-advanced practice provider staff member who initiated frequent contact via telephone, telemedicine, or in-clinic visits to discuss the patient's health goals. The minimum follow-up period was 90 days. Outcomes qualitatively compared across groups included final pain score, final morphine milligram equivalent (MME) per day, and discharge rates. Risk factors for discharge within the navigation group were assessed. Patient feedback was also solicited. SETTING: This study was conducted at a single independent pain clinic in the United States. RESULTS: Demographic features were similar between the navigator group and the control group. The control group had a higher average initial pain score (7.0/10) than the intervention group (5.9/10) and were receiving a higher initial dose of opioids (23.1 vs 19.0 MME/d). After an average follow-up of 108.7 days, patients in the navigator group had a 16% decrease in final opioid dose compared with a 23% increase in the control group. Furthermore, patients in the control group were discharged from the practice at a higher rate (23.3% vs 6.6%), suggesting increased opioid misuse in the control group compared with the navigator group. In the navigator group, higher levels of anxiety and depression were the primary predictors of discharge. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study with a small sample size. The generalizability of these results to other clinic settings is unknown. CONCLUSIONS: Patient navigation decreased opioid use and practice discharge compared with usual care in an independent pain clinic, suggesting a role for patient navigation in reducing opioid misuse and potentially reducing adverse events.

Survey of Opioid Risk Tool Among Cancer Patients Receiving Opioid Analgesics.

BACKGROUND: The risk of opioid-related aberrant behavior (OAB) in Korean cancer patients has not been previously evaluated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) in Korean cancer patients receiving opioid treatment. METHODS: Data were obtained from a multicenter, cross-sectional, nationwide observational study regarding breakthrough cancer pain. The study was conducted in 33 South Korean institutions from March 2016 to December 2017. Patients were eligible if they had cancer-related pain within the past 7 days, which was treated with strong opioids in the previous 7 days. RESULTS: We analyzed ORT results of 946 patients. Only one patient in each sex (0.2%) was classified as high risk for OAB. Moderate risk was observed in 18 males (3.3%) and in three females (0.7%). Scores above 0 were primarily derived from positive responses for personal or familial history of alcohol abuse (in men), or depression (in women). In patients with an ORT score of 1 or higher (n = 132, 14%), the score primarily represented positive responses for personal history of depression (in females), personal or family history of alcohol abuse (in males), or 16-45 years age range. These patients had more severe worst and average pain intensity (proportion of numeric rating scale ≥ 4: 20.5% vs. 11.4%, P < 0.001) and used rescue analgesics more frequently than patients with ORT scores of 0. The proportion of moderate- or high-risk patients according to ORT was lower in patients receiving low doses of long-acting opioids than in those receiving high doses (2.0% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.031). Moderate or high risk was more frequent when ORT was completed in an isolated room than in an open, busy place (2.7% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.089). CONCLUSIONS: The score of ORT was very low in cancer patients receiving strong opioids for analgesia. Higher pain intensity may associate with positive response to one or more ORT item.

Attitudes, self-efficacy, and practices related to opioid risk assessment and mitigation: A comparison of health care professionals in rural communities.

Background: Health care professionals (HCPs) play an important role in opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) screening/identification, mitigation, and referral to treatment. This study compared attitudes, self-efficacy, and practices related to opioid risk assessment and mitigation among pregnancy and non-pregnancy HCPs in rural communities. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of cross-sectional, self-report survey data of HCPs in two rural counties in southern Utah. Pregnancy HCPs were identified by a question asking whether they provide care to pregnant patients. HCPs' attitudes toward their patients with opioid misuse/OUD were measured using the Survey of Attitudes and Perceptions questionnaire. Self-efficacy and practices related to opioid risk assessment and mitigation were captured with questions asking about assessment and screening of opioid use, advisement to change opioid use behavior, and referral to treatment for OUD. We used linear regression analyses to estimate associations between HCPs' attitudes toward patients with opioid misuse/OUD and their self-efficacy and use of opioid risk assessment and mitigation practices. Results: This sample included a total of 132 HCPs, including 82 pregnancy HCPs and 50 non-pregnancy HCPs. Attitudes domains were similar among pregnancy and non-pregnancy HCPs. Among pregnancy HCPs, role adequacy (ß = .48, 95% CI = .16-.80), role legitimacy (ß = .72, 95% CI = .21-1.22), motivation (ß = .68, 95% CI = .14-1.21), and positive task-specific self-esteem (ß = 1.52, 95% CI = .70-2.35) were positively associated with more frequent use of opioid risk assessment and mitigation practices, while attitudes were not associated with these practices among non-pregnancy HCPs. Conclusions: Training initiatives that lead to improved HCP attitudes could improve opioid care management among rural pregnancy HCPs. More research is needed to determine approaches to increase the use of opioid risk assessment and mitigation practices among rural non-pregnancy HCPs.

Differences in the attitudes towards the opioid crisis between metropolitan and rural counties in Central Texas: Secondary data analysis using cross-sectional data.

This study examined metropolitan and rural differences regarding concerns about opioid misuse and support for different strategies to reduce opioid use disorder risk in areas not designated as high-risk. This study used cross-sectional data from a regional community health assessment, which was collected in 2019 using a combination of stratified random sampling and clinic-based purposive sampling in Central Texas. The secondary data included 430 and 270 respondents from metropolitan and rural (not metropolitan) counties, respectively. The primary outcomes were perceived concern about the opioid crisis, perceived likelihood of getting addiction treatment, and support for strategies to reduce opioid use disorder risks. Multiple multivariable regression models were used to examine metropolitan and rural differences in the outcome variables after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, race, marital status, education, and household income. Respondents were about 58 years old on average. A majority were female (60%), non-Hispanic (88%), and White (83%). About 60% of rural and metropolitan respondents were concerned about opioid use and misuse in their community. After adjusting for respondents' demographic characteristics, rural respondents were significantly less likely to perceive that individuals are getting the needed opioid use disorder treatment (aOR = 0.69, P = 0.031). Rural respondents were also significantly less supportive for legalizing syringe service programs in their communities (aOR = 0.71, P = 0.044) than metropolitan respondents. Differing attitudes by respondents from metropolitan and rural areas indicate the importance of tailoring prevention and mitigation efforts to address opioid use disorder in advance of an impending public health crisis.

Diagnostic and Predictive Capacity of the Spanish Versions of the Opioid Risk Tool and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised: A Preliminary Investigation in a Sample of People with Noncancer Chronic Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate assessment of the risk of opioid abuse and misuse in people with noncancer chronic pain is crucial for their prevention. This study aimed to provide preliminary evidence of the diagnostic and predictive capacity of the Spanish versions of the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain-Revised (SOAPP-R). METHODS: We used the Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) as criterion measure to assess the capacity of each tool to identify patients misusing opioids at the time of the assessment. Eighteen months later, we used the COMM and the Drug Abuse Screening Test-10 (DAST-10) to assess their predictive capacity. In total, 147 people with noncancer chronic pain participated in the diagnostic study, and 42 in the predictive study. RESULTS: Receiver operating curve analysis showed that the SOAPP-R had an excellent capacity to identify participants who were misusing opioids at the time of assessment (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.827). The diagnostic capacity of the ORT was close to acceptable (AUC = 0.649-0.669), whereas its predictive capacity was poor (AUC = 0.522-0.554). The predictive capacity of the SOAPP-R was close to acceptable regarding misuse (AUC = 0.672) and poor regarding abuse (AUC = 0.423). CONCLUSION: In the setting of Spanish-speaking communities, clinicians should be cautious when using these instruments to make decisions on opioid administration. Further research is needed on the diagnostic and predictive capacity of the Spanish versions of both instruments.

Long-term postoperative opioid prescription after cholecystectomy or gastric by-pass surgery: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Opioids are commonly prescribed post-surgery. We investigated the proportion of patients who were prescribed any opioids 6-12 months after two common surgeries - laparoscopic cholecystectomy and gastric by-pass (GBP) surgery. A secondary aim was to examine risk factors prior to surgery associated with the prescription of any opioids after surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study on data from medical records from patients who underwent cholecystectomy (n=297) or GBP (n=93) in 2018 in the Region of Västerbotten, Sweden. Data on prescriptions for opioids and other drugs were collected from the patients` medical records. RESULTS: There were 109 patients (28%) who were prescribed opioids after discharge from surgery but only 20 patients (5%) who still received opioid prescriptions 6-12 months after surgery. All 20 of these patients had also been prescribed opioids within three months before surgery, most commonly for back and joint pain. Only 1 out of 56 patients who were prescribed opioids preoperatively due to gallbladder pain still received prescriptions for opioids 6-12 months after surgery. Although opioid use in the early postoperative period was more common among patients who underwent cholecystectomy, the patients who underwent GBP were more prone to be "long-term" users of opioids. In the patients who were prescribed opioids within three months prior to surgery, 8 out of 13 patients who underwent GBP and 12 of the 96 patients who underwent cholecystectomy were still prescribed opioids 6-12 months after surgery (OR 11.2; 95% CI 3.1-39.9, p=0,0002). Affective disorders were common among "long-term" users of opioids and prior benzodiazepine and amitriptyline use were significantly associated with "long-term" opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients that used opioids 6-12 months after cholecystectomy or GBP was low. Patients with preoperative opioid-use experienced a significantly higher risk of "long-term" opioid use when undergoing GBP compared to cholecystectomy. The indication for being prescribed opioids in the "long-term" were mostly unrelated to surgery. No patient who was naïve to opioids prior surgery was prescribed opioids 6-12 months after surgery. Although opioids are commonly prescribed in the preoperative and in the early postoperative period to patients with gallbladder disease, there is a low risk that these prescriptions will lead to long-term opioid use. The reasons for being prescribed opioids in the long-term are often due to causes not related to surgery.

Communication between patients and health care professionals about opioid medications.

Prescription opioids contribute to 40% of opioid overdose deaths in the United States. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play an important role in mitigating the prescription opioid epidemic by appropriate opioid prescribing and patient education. Yet, little empirical literature addresses pharmacist (and other HCP) communication with patients related to risks of opioid use associated with dependence, misuse, and overdose. Nor is there much research on the barriers and facilitators which affect whether and how much opioid-related information is discussed. This commentary, based on an extensive literature search, seeks to inform future communication, education, and research agendas by describing (1) topics commonly discussed or excluded from opioid medication counseling, (2) patient and HCP perceptions regarding opioid medication communication, and (3) barriers and facilitators to opioid risk communication. Based on this literature, recommendations are provided for opioid counseling practices, pharmacist education, and research agendas.

Teaching Pain Management in Serious Illness in the Era of the Opioid Epidemic: A Team-Based Intervention.

Introduction: Despite the prevalence of pain in patients with serious illness, recent guidelines for opioid prescribing practices have largely excluded palliative care patients. In lieu of such guidelines, many have recommended adapting risk mitigation strategies from the chronic pain arena for palliative care and oncology populations. Teaching interventions are needed to demonstrate how these methods can be applied to patients with serious illness. Methods: We developed a teaching intervention for fourth-year medical students to improve knowledge about safe opioid prescribing practices in palliative care patients and emphasized both effective and safe pain management. A secondary aim of the intervention was to demonstrate how a palliative care interdisciplinary team works together to care for a complex patient near the end of life. The intervention lasted 1 hour and consisted of an interdisciplinary case presentation as well as a slide presentation. Results: Twenty-two medical students attended the session over 2 years. After the intervention, medical students better understood risk mitigation strategies and felt more strongly that opioids can be a useful tool in treating pain for patients with serious illness. Students' familiarity with palliative care interdisciplinary roles also improved after the intervention. Discussion: This session was a useful part of a palliative care 2-week classroom elective and was well received by students. The development of a survey tool that assesses student attitudes around effective and safe pain management in patients with serious illness may be of use to others who teach pain management in palliative care populations.

How to Measure Pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pain is a multi-faceted symptom. Effective pain assessment involves properly defining the pain syndrome, utilizing various assessment tools, and recognizing different conditions which may affect the expression and the management of pain. RECENT FINDINGS: Pain results from multiple physical and psychosocial etiological interplay. It has traditionally been categorized as acute or chronic with chronic pain having been categorized further into 6 categories in ICD 11. At the same time, the opioid epidemic and the recent surge in cannabis popularity further complicates pain assessment and effective pain management. Adequate management of pain begins with proper assessment including conducting extensive medical and psychosocial history and physical examination, and utilizing various pain and substance risk assessment tools. An interdisciplinary team approach may be more effective in managing complex pain behaviors compared to a solo approach.

The Risk of Prior Opioid Exposure on Future Opioid Use and Comorbidities in Individuals With Non-Acute Musculoskeletal Knee Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Due to their potentially deleterious effects, minimizing the use of opioids for musculoskeletal pain is a priority for healthcare systems. The objective of this study was to examine the risk of future opioid prescription use based on prior opioid use within a non-surgical cohort with musculoskeletal knee pain. We also examined the risk of pre-existing comorbidities on future opioid use, and the risk of prior opioid use on future comorbidities (sleep, mental health, cardiometabolic disorders). METHODS: Data came from the Military Health System Data Repository for 80 290 consecutive beneficiaries with an initial episode of care for patellofemoral pain from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011. Risk was calculated using 2 × 2 tables based on pre- and post-opioid utilization and comorbid diagnosis. Risk ratios, relative and absolute risk increases, and numbers needed to harm were calculated, all with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Prior opioid use resulted in a risk ratio of 18.0 (95 CI 17.1, 19.0) and an absolute risk increase of 61.6% for future opioid use (numbers needed to harm = 2). The presence of all comorbidities (except cardiometabolic syndrome) were associated with a significant relative risk for future opioid use (RR range 1.2-1.5), but the absolute risk increase was trivial (range 0.7%-2.2%). The relative risk for a chronic pain diagnosis, traumatic brain injury/concussion, insomnia, depression, and PTSD were all significantly higher in those with prior opioid use (1.3-1.6), but absolute risk increase was minimal (1.1%-6.5%). DISCUSSION: Prior opioid use was a strong risk factor for future opioid use in non-surgical patients with knee pain. These findings show that history of prior opioid use is important when assessing the risk of future opioid use, whereas prior comorbidities may not be as important. Opioid history assessment should be standard practice for all patients with patellofemoral pain in whom an opioid prescription is considered.

Stories to Communicate Individual Risk for Opioid Prescriptions for Back and Kidney Stone Pain: Protocol for the Life STORRIED Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid misuse in the United States is a devastating public health crisis; many chronic opioid users were originally prescribed this class of medication for acute pain. Video narrative-enhanced risk communication may improve patient outcomes, such as knowledge of opioid risk and opioid use behaviors after an episode of acute pain. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to assess the effect of probabilistic and narrative-enhanced opioid risk communication on patient-reported outcomes, including knowledge, opioid use, and patient preferences, for patients who present to emergency departments with back pain and kidney stone pain. METHODS: This is a multisite randomized controlled trial. Patients presenting to the acute care facilities of four geographically and ethnically diverse US hospital centers with acute renal colic pain or musculoskeletal back and/or neck pain are eligible for this randomized controlled trial. A control group of patients receiving general risk information is compared to two intervention groups: one receiving the risk information sheet plus an individualized, visual probabilistic Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) and another receiving the risk information sheet plus a video narrative-enhanced probabilistic ORT. We will study the effect of probabilistic and narrative-enhanced opioid risk communication on the following: risk awareness and recall at 14 days postenrollment, reduced use or preferences for opioids after the emergency department episode, and alignment with patient preference and provider prescription. To assess these outcomes, we administer baseline patient surveys during acute care admission and follow-up surveys at predetermined times during the 3 months after discharge. RESULTS: A total of 1302 patients were enrolled over 24 months. The mean age of the participants was 40 years (SD 14), 692 out of 1302 (53.15%) were female, 556 out of 1302 (42.70%) were White, 498 out of 1302 (38.25%) were Black, 1002 out of 1302 (76.96%) had back pain, and 334 out of 1302 (25.65%) were at medium or high risk. Demographics and ORT scores were equally distributed across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This study seeks to assess the potential clinical role of narrative-enhanced, risk-informed communication for acute pain management in acute care settings. This paper outlines the protocol used to implement the study and highlights crucial methodological, statistical, and stakeholder involvement as well as dissemination considerations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03134092; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03134092. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/19496.