Increasing buprenorphine access for patients with chronic pain: a quality improvement initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Buprenorphine is effective for chronic pain and safer than full-agonist opioids; however, limited education about and support for buprenorphine can result in under-prescribing in primary care and reduced access in specialty pain clinics. The purpose of this quality improvement initiative was to optimize and evaluate procedures for transferring patients stable on buprenorphine for chronic pain from a specialty pain clinic back to primary care. SETTING: Eight primary care clinics within a Veterans Health Administration health care system. METHODS: A standard operating procedure for facilitated transfer of prescribing was developed after a needs assessment and was introduced during an educational session with primary care providers, and providers completed a survey assessing attitudes about buprenorphine prescribing. Success of the initiative was measured through the number of patients transferred back to primary care over the course of 18 months. RESULTS: Survey results indicated that primary care providers with previous experience prescribing buprenorphine were more likely to view buprenorphine prescribing for pain as within the scope of their practice and to endorse feeling comfortable managing a buprenorphine regimen. Providers identified systemic and educational barriers to prescribing, and they identified ongoing support from specialty pain care and primary care as a facilitator of prescribing. Metrics suggested that the standard operating procedure was generally successful in transferring and retaining eligible patients in primary care. CONCLUSION: This quality improvement initiative suggests that a facilitated transfer procedure can be useful in increasing buprenorphine prescribing for pain in primary care. Future efforts to increase primary care provider comfort and address systemic barriers to buprenorphine prescribing are needed.

Using Daily Ratings to Examine Treatment Dose and Response in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the Co-Operative Pain Education and Self-Management Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) has a strong evidence base, but little is known about when treatment benefits are achieved. The present study is a secondary analysis of individuals with chronic back pain recruited for a noninferiority trial comparing interactive voice response (IVR) CBT-CP with in-person CBT-CP. METHODS: On the basis of data from daily IVR surveys, a clinically meaningful change was defined as a 30% reduction in pain intensity (n = 108) or a 45% increase in daily steps (n = 104) compared with the baseline week. We identified individuals who achieved a meaningful change at any point during treatment, and then we compared those who maintained a meaningful change in their final treatment week (i.e., responders) with those who did not or who achieved a meaningful change but lapsed (i.e., nonresponders). RESULTS: During treatment, 46% of participants achieved a clinically meaningful decrease in pain intensity, and 66% achieved a clinically significant increase in number of steps per day. A total of 54% of patients were classified as responders in terms of decreases in pain intensity, and 70% were responders in terms of increases in step count. Survival analyses found that 50% of responders first achieved a clinically meaningful change by week 4 for pain intensity and week 2 for daily steps. Dropout and demographic variables were unrelated to responder status, and there was low agreement between the two measures of treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, results suggest that most responders improve within 4 weeks. Evaluating treatment response is highly specific to the outcome measure, with little correlation across outcomes.

Pre-implementation formative evaluation of cooperative pain education and self-management expanding treatment for real-world access: A pragmatic pain trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP) is an evidence-based treatment for improving functioning and pain intensity for people with chronic pain with extensive evidence of effectiveness. However, there has been relatively little investigation of the factors associated with successful implementation and uptake of CBT-CP, particularly clinician and system level factors. This formative evaluation examined barriers and facilitators to the successful implementation and uptake of CBT-CP from the perspective of CBT-CP clinicians and referring primary care clinicians. METHODS: Qualitative interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were conducted at nine geographically diverse Veterans Affairs sites as part of a pragmatic clinical trial comparing synchronous, clinician-delivered CBT-CP and remotely delivered, technology-assisted CBT-CP. Analysis was informed by a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinicians (CBT-CP clinicians = 17, primary care clinicians = 9) from nine VA medical centers participated in individual qualitative interviews conducted by telephone from April 2019 to August 2020. Four themes emerged in the qualitative interviews: (1) the complexity and variability of referral pathways across sites, (2) referring clinician's lack of knowledge about CBT-CP, (3) referring clinician's difficulty identifying suitable candidates for CBT-CP, and (4) preference for interventions that can be completed from home. CONCLUSIONS: This formative evaluation identified clinician and system barriers to widespread implementation of CBT-CP and allowed for refinement of the subsequent implementation of two forms of CBT-CP in an ongoing pragmatic trial. Identification of relative difference in barriers and facilitators in the two forms of CBT-CP may emerge more clearly in a pragmatic trial that evaluates how treatments perform in real-world settings and may provide important information to guide future system-wide implementation efforts.

Effects of a Weight and Pain Management Program in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis With Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Investigation.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with poor outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Effective weight management is imperative. Although traditional lifestyle behavioral weight loss programs have demonstrated efficacy for reducing weight, these interventions do not meet the pain-related weight loss challenges of RA patients with obesity. OBJECTIVE: A 12-session group program (90 minutes per session) was developed integrating pain coping skills training into a lifestyle behavioral weight loss intervention. In addition to the weekly group sessions, participants engaged in supervised exercise sessions 3 times per week. METHODS: Through a small, pilot randomized trial, 50 participants were randomized to receive the intervention (n = 29) or standard care of RA (n = 21). Feasibility data (i.e., accrual, attrition, adherence) was examined using descriptive statistics (e.g., percent). We examined patterns of change in study outcomes from baseline to follow-up separately for the intervention and standard care arms using descriptive statistics and paired t tests. Effect sizes are also presented. RESULTS: Of those randomized to the intervention group,79.3% initiated treatment, with participants attending 74.3% of group skills sessions and 64.2% of exercise sessions. Intervention participants evidenced reductions in weight (mean, -2.28 kg) and waist circumference (mean, -4.76 cm) and improvements in physical functioning, eating behaviors, pain, and self-efficacy for weight control. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that incorporating a combined pain coping skills training and behavioral weight loss intervention into medical management of RA may improve outcomes. Study accrual and attrition, as well as intervention adherence, will inform future, larger randomized efficacy trials of the intervention.Retrospectively registered: January 29, 2020, NCT04246827.

Validity of Incident Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) Diagnoses in Administrative Data: a Chart Verification Study.

BACKGROUND: An important strategy to address the opioid overdose epidemic involves identifying people at elevated risk of overdose, particularly those with opioid use disorder (OUD). However, it is unclear to what degree OUD diagnoses in administrative data are inaccurate. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of inaccurate diagnoses of OUD among patients with incident OUD diagnoses. SUBJECTS: A random sample of 90 patients with incident OUD diagnoses associated with an index in-person encounter between October 1, 2016, and June 1, 2018, in three Veterans Health Administration medical centers. DESIGN: Direct chart review of all encounter notes, referrals, prescriptions, and laboratory values within a 120-day window before and after the index encounter. Using all available chart data, we determined whether the diagnosis of OUD was likely accurate, likely inaccurate, or of indeterminate accuracy. We then performed a bivariate analysis to assess demographic or clinical characteristics associated with likely inaccurate diagnoses. KEY RESULTS: We identified 1337 veterans with incident OUD diagnoses. In the chart verification subsample, we assessed 26 (29%) OUD diagnoses as likely inaccurate; 20 due to systems error and 6 due to clinical error; additionally, 8 had insufficient information to determine accuracy. Veterans with likely inaccurate diagnoses were more likely to be younger and prescribed opioids for pain. Clinical settings associated with likely inaccurate diagnoses were non-mental health clinical settings, group visits, and non-patient care settings. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified significant levels of likely inaccurate OUD diagnoses among veterans with incident OUD diagnoses. The majority of these cases reflected readily addressable systems errors. The smaller proportion due to clinical errors and those with insufficient documentation may be addressed by increased training for clinicians. If these inaccuracies are prevalent throughout the VHA, they could complicate health services research and health systems responses.

ICD-10 Coding of Musculoskeletal Conditions in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: We describe the most frequently used musculoskeletal diagnoses in Veterans Health Administration care. We report the number of visits and patients associated with common musculoskeletal International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes and compare trends across primary and specialty care settings. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a longitudinal cohort study. SUBJECTS: Veterans included in the Musculoskeletal Diagnosis Cohort with a musculoskeletal diagnosis from October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2017. METHODS: We obtained counts and proportions of all musculoskeletal diagnosis codes used and the number of unique patients with each musculoskeletal diagnosis. Diagnosis use was compared between primary and specialty care settings. RESULTS: Of more than 6,400 possible ICD-10 M-codes describing "Diseases of the Musculoskeletal System and Connective Tissue," 5,723 codes were used at least once. The most frequently used ICD-10 M-code was "Low Back Pain" (18.3%), followed by "Cervicalgia" (3.6%). Collectively, the 100 most frequently used codes accounted for 80% of M-coded visit diagnoses, and 95% of patients had at least one of these diagnoses. The most common diagnoses (spinal pain, joint pain, osteoarthritis) were used similarly in primary and specialty care settings. CONCLUSION: A diverse sample of all available musculoskeletal diagnosis codes were used; however, less than 2% of all possible codes accounted for 80% of the diagnoses used. This trend was consistent across primary and specialty care settings. The most frequently used diagnosis codes describe the types of musculoskeletal conditions, among a large pool of potential diagnoses, that prompt veterans to present to the Veterans Health Administration for musculoskeletal care.

A Research Agenda for Advancing Strategies to Improve Opioid Safety: Findings from a VHA State of the Art Conference.

US military Veterans have been disproportionately impacted by the US opioid overdose crisis. In the fall of 2019, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) convened a state-of-the-art (SOTA) conference to develop research priorities for advancing the science and clinical practice of opioid safety, including both use of opioid analgesics and managing opioid use disorder. We present the methods and consensus recommendations from the SOTA. A core group of researchers and VA clinical stakeholders defined three areas of focus for the SOTA: managing opioid use disorder, long-term opioid therapy for pain including consideration for opioid tapering, and treatment of co-occurring pain and substance use disorders. The SOTA participants divided into three workgroups and identified key questions and seminal studies related to those three areas of focus. The strongest recommendations included testing implementation strategies in the VHA for expanding access to medication treatment for opioid use disorder, testing collaborative tapering programs for patients prescribed long-term opioids, and larger trials of behavioral and exercise/movement interventions for pain among patients with substance use disorders.

Co-Operative Pain Education and Self-management (COPES) Expanding Treatment for Real-World Access (ExTRA): Pragmatic Trial Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Given access barriers to cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain (CBT-CP), this pragmatic superiority trial will determine whether a remotely delivered CBT-CP intervention that addresses these barriers outperforms in-person and other synchronous forms of CBT-CP for veterans with musculoskeletal pain. DESIGN: This pragmatic trial compares an asynchronous form of CBT-CP that uses interactive voice response (IVR) to allow patients to participate from their home (IVR CBT-CP) with synchronous CBT-CP delivered by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinician. Veterans (n=764; 50% male) with chronic musculoskeletal pain throughout nine VA medical centers will participate. The primary outcome is pain interference after treatment (4 months). Secondary outcomes, including pain intensity, depression symptom severity, sleep, self-efficacy, and global impression of change, are also measured after treatment. Where possible, outcomes are collected via electronic health record extraction, with remaining measures collected via IVR calls to maintain blinding. Quantitative and qualitative process evaluation metrics will be collected to evaluate factors related to implementation. A budget impact analysis will be performed. SUMMARY: This pragmatic trial compares the outcomes, cost, and implementation of two forms of CBT-CP as delivered in the real-world setting. Findings from the trial can be used to guide future policy and implementation efforts related to these interventions and their use in the health system. If one of the interventions emerges as superior, resources can be directed to this modality. If both treatments are effective, patient preferences and health care system factors will take precedence when making referrals. Implications of COVID-19 on treatment provision and trial outcomes are discussed.

Persistent breast pain in post-surgery breast cancer survivors and women with no history of breast surgery or cancer: associations with pain catastrophizing, perceived breast cancer risk, breast cancer worry, and emotional distress.

Background: Persistent breast pain (PBP) is prevalent among breast cancer survivors and has powerful negative psychological consequences. The present study provided a first test of the hypothesis that: (a) pain catastrophizing, (b) heightened perceived risk of cancer, and (c) worry that pain indicates cancer may be independent mediating links between breast cancer survivors' experiences of PBP and heightened emotional distress. Methodology: We assessed levels of PBP and psychological factors in breast cancer survivors (Survivor Group: n = 417; Stages I-IIIA; White = 88.7%; Age M = 59.4 years) at their first surveillance mammogram post-surgery (6-15 months). A comparison group of women without histories of breast surgery or cancer (Non-cancer Group: n = 587; White = 78.7%; Age M = 57.4 years) was similarly assessed at the time of a routine screening mammogram. All women completed measures of breast pain, pain catastrophizing, perceived breast cancer risk, and worry that breast pain indicates cancer, as well as measures of emotional distress (symptoms of anxiety, symptoms of depression, and mammography-specific distress). Analyses included race, age, BMI, education, and menopausal status as covariates, with significance set at 0.05. Results: As expected, PBP prevalence was significantly higher in the Survivor Group than in the Non-cancer Group (50.6% vs. 17.5%). PBP+ survivors also had significantly higher levels of emotional distress, pain catastrophizing, mammography-specific distress, and worry that breast pain indicates cancer, compared to PBP- survivors. Structural equation modeling results were significant for all hypothesized mediational pathways. Interestingly, comparisons of PBP+ to PBP- women in the Non-cancer Group showed similar results. Conclusion: These findings suggest the importance of (a) pain catastrophizing, (b) perceived breast cancer risk and, (c) worry that breast pain may indicate cancer, as potential targets for interventions aimed at reducing the negative psychological impact of PBP in post-surgery breast cancer survivors, as well as in unaffected women with PBP due to unknown reasons.

Emotion-Focused Avoidance Coping Mediates the Association Between Pain and Health-Related Quality of Life in Children With Sickle Cell Disease.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is associated with pain and decreased health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Coping strategies influence pain but have not been evaluated as mediating the relation between pain and HRQOL in pediatric SCD. The current study examined whether pain-related coping mediates the association between pain and HRQOL in children and adolescents with SCD. In total, 104 children and adolescents 8 to 18 years of age (Mage=12.93 y) with SCD attending outpatient clinics completed pain intensity, HRQOL, and pain-related coping measures. Multiple mediation analyses were used to examine whether pain-related coping mediated the pain and HRQOL relation and whether types of coping (ie, approach, emotion-focused avoidance, problem-focused avoidance) were independent mediators. Total indirect effects for models examining physical and psychosocial HRQOL were not significant. After controlling for covariates, emotion-focused avoidance significantly mediated the association between pain and physical HRQOL (effect: -0.023; bootstrapped SE: 0.018; 95% confidence interval: -0.0751, -0.0003) but not the pain and psychosocial HRQOL relation. Approach and problem-focused avoidance were not significant mediators. Coping with pain in pediatric SCD is an important avenue for clinical intervention and additional research. Among children with SCD reporting high pain intensity, interventions should emphasize negative impacts of emotion-focused avoidance coping and integrate other empirically supported coping strategies to improve HRQOL.

Enhancing Motivation for Change in the Management of Chronic Painful Conditions: a Review of Recent Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to evaluate and summarize recent empirical research investigating motivational factors for management of chronic pain and headache disorders. RECENT FINDINGS: Research on motivation for non-pharmacological treatment of chronic pain and headache disorders has identified factors that influence initiation of and adherence to treatment. To address common factors that inhibit initiation of treatment (i.e., cost, time commitment), several electronic treatments have been developed. Self-efficacy is the most commonly studied psychosocial influence on treatment adherence, with evidence that it is positively correlated with adherence. Other studies have sought to improve adherence to treatment using motivational interviewing interventions. There is currently limited research on how to enhance motivation for initial adherence to non-pharmacological treatment for chronic pain and headache disorders. Instead of enhancing motivation, researchers have looked to reduce barriers to treatment with electronic health treatments; however, many of these studies have focused on intervention feasibility, rather than efficacy or effectiveness. Numerous studies have identified a relationship between self-efficacy and treatment adherence. Although motivational interviewing interventions have been shown to improve adherence to treatment, there is little evidence that they improve treatment outcomes. Recommendations for further investigation include improving interventions to enhance accessibility and adherence to treatment with the goal of improving outcomes, as well as identifying ways to improve treatment initiation and adherence in patients who are currently engaged in long-term opioid therapy.

Use of Non-Pharmacological Pain Treatment Modalities Among Veterans with Chronic Pain: Results from a Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of non-pharmacological pain treatment modalities (NPMs), little is known about the prevalence or correlates of NPM use. OBJECTIVE: This study examined rates and correlates of NPM use in a sample of veterans who served during recent conflicts. DESIGN: We examined rates and demographic and clinical correlates of self-reported NPM use (operationalized as psychological/behavioral therapies, exercise/movement therapies, and manual therapies). We calculated descriptive statistics and examined bivariate associations and multivariable associations using logistic regression. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 460 veterans endorsing pain lasting ≥ 3 months who completed the baseline survey of the Women Veterans Cohort Study (response rate 7.7%. MAIN MEASURES: Outcome was self-reported use of NPMs in the past 12 months. KEY RESULTS: Veterans were 33.76 years old (SD = 10.72), 56.3% female, and 80.2% White. Regarding NPM use, 22.6% reported using psychological/behavioral, 50.9% used exercise/movement and 51.7% used manual therapies. Veterans with a college degree (vs. no degree; OR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.46, 4.30, p = 0.001) or those with worse mental health symptoms (OR = 2.88, 95% CI = 2.11, 3.93, p < 0.001) were more likely to use psychological/behavioral therapies. Veterans who were female (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.43, 0.93, p = 0.02) or who used non-opioid pain medications (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.146, 2.84, p = 0.009) were more likely to use exercise/movement therapies. Veterans who were non-White (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.5, 0.94, p = 0.03), with greater educational attainment (OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.42, 3.15, p < 0.001), or who used non-opioid pain medication (OR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.09, 2.68, p = 0.02) were more likely to use manual therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Results identified demographic and clinical characteristics among different NPMs, which may indicate differences in veteran treatment preferences or provider referral patterns. Further study of provider referral patterns and veteran treatment preferences is needed to inform interventions to increase NPM utilization. Research is also need to identify demographic and clinical correlates of clinical outcomes related to NPM use.

A Brief, Integrated, Telephone-Based Intervention for Veterans Who Smoke and Have Chronic Pain: A Feasibility Study.

Objective: High rates of co-occurring smoking and chronic pain are observed in the veteran population. Individuals who smoke and have chronic pain report lower self-efficacy to quit and are less successful in their attempts. Design: In this pilot study, we assess the feasibility of a telephone-delivered intervention designed to integrate evidence-based smoking cessation and pain management components in a way that allows patients to understand the interplay between the two while attempting to have them build off each other and develop coping skills to address both concerns. Patients: Study participants (N = 7) were veterans who received primary care in the VA Healthcare System and reported current smoking and a worst pain intensity score of 4 or greater. Intervention: A five-session telephone intervention was delivered over eight weeks. Participants completed a survey at baseline and 10-week follow-up. Outcome Measures: Feasibility was assessed by examining engagement with the intervention. Results: Four out of seven participants completed all five sessions. Two out of seven veterans reported quitting smoking, and five out of seven reported clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity and functional interference. Conclusions: Insights gained from this study were used to modify an intervention being examined in a randomized controlled trial to test its effectiveness on both smoking and pain outcomes.

Evaluation of an Integrated, Multidisciplinary Program to Address Unsafe Use of Opioids Prescribed for Pain.

Objectives: Unsafe use of opioids prescribed for pain is a common challenge in primary care. We aimed to describe a novel clinical program designed to address this issue-the Opioid Reassessment Clinic-and evaluate preliminary efficacy. Methods: The Opioid Reassessment Clinic is a multidisciplinary care team staffed by an internist, addiction psychiatrist, advanced practice nurse, and health psychologist designed to perform enhanced assessment and longitudinal treatment of patients with unsafe use of opioids prescribed for pain. We assessed preliminary efficacy of the clinic using a priori-defined metrics at the patient, provider, clinic process, and health system levels. Results: Of referred patients (N = 87), 84% had a history of substance abuse/dependence and 70% had current misuse of prescribed opioids; 22% received a new substance use disorder diagnosis, each of whom engaged in addiction treatment. Among primary care physicians, 48% referred a patient to the clinic. In terms of process metrics, high fidelity to structured clinical assessments was assisted by templated electronic progress notes. Wait time averaged 22.1 days while length of treatment averaged 137 days. Urine drug testing was performed on 91% of patients an average of 6.4 times, while assessing out-of-system opioid receipt occurred universally. Systems-level findings included evidence of institutional support: hiring a nurse case manager to help with care coordination. Conclusions: Results suggest the Opioid Reassessment Clinic was effective in the management of a small group of high-complexity patients. Wide-scale dissemination may require adapted care models.

Multimodal Treatment Options, Including Rotating to Buprenorphine, Within a Multidisciplinary Pain Clinic for Patients on Risky Opioid Regimens: A Quality Improvement Study.

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate a novel clinical program designed to address unsafe use of opioids prescribed for pain-the Opioid Reassessment Clinic (ORC)-to inform practice and health system improvement. Design: Controlled, retrospective cohort study. Setting: The ORC is a multidisciplinary clinic in a primary care setting in a Veterans Health Administration hospital designed to perform longitudinal treatment of patients with unsafe use of opioids prescribed for pain, including tapering or rotating to the partial opioid agonist buprenorphine. Subjects: We included patients referred to the ORC from March 1, 2016, to March 1, 2017, who had an intake appointment (intervention group) and who did not (control group). Methods: We compared a priori-defined metrics at the patient, clinic process, and health system levels and compared metrics between groups. Results: During the study period, 114 veterans were referred to the ORC, and 71 (62%) of these had an intake appointment. Those in the intervention group were more likely to trial buprenorphine (N = 41, 62% vs N = 1, 2%, P < 0.01) and had greater reductions in their full agonist morphine equivalent daily dose than those in the control group (30 mg [interquartile range {IQR} = 0-120] vs 0 mg [IQR = 0-20] decrease, P < 0.01). Of those engaging in the ORC, 20 (30%) had not transitioned chronic pain management back to their primary care providers (PCPs) by the end of follow-up. Only one patient transitioned the management of buprenorphine to the PCP. Conclusions: Results suggest the ORC was effective in reducing total prescribed opioid doses and in transitioning patients to partial-agonist therapy, but PCP adoption strategies are needed.

Opioid Use Among Veterans of Recent Wars Receiving Veterans Affairs Chiropractic Care.

Objective: To examine patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with opioid use among Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) who receive chiropractic care, and to explore the relationship between timing of a chiropractic visit and receipt of an opioid prescription. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of administrative data on OEF/OIF/OND veterans who had at least one visit to a Veterans Affairs (VA) chiropractic clinic between 2004 and 2014. Opioid receipt was defined as at least one prescription within a window of 90 days before to 90 days after the index chiropractic clinic visit. Results: We identified 14,025 OEF/OIF/OND veterans with at least one chiropractic visit, and 4,396 (31.3%) of them also received one or more opioid prescriptions. Moderate/severe pain (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.72-2.03), PTSD (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.41-1.69), depression (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.29-1.53), and current smoking (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.26-1.52) were associated with a higher likelihood of receiving an opioid prescription. The percentage of veterans receiving opioid prescriptions was lower in each of the three 30-day time frames assessed after the index chiropractic visit than before. Conclusions: Nearly one-third of OEF/OIF/OND veterans receiving VA chiropractic services also received an opioid prescription, yet the frequency of opioid prescriptions was lower after the index chiropractic visit than before. Further study is warranted to assess the relationship between opioid use and chiropractic care.

Project STEP: Implementing the Veterans Health Administration's Stepped Care Model of Pain Management.

Objective: The "stepped care model of pain management" (SCM-PM) prioritizes the role of primary care providers in optimizing pharmacological management and timely and equitable access to patient-centered, evidence-based nonpharmacological approaches, when indicated. Over the past several years, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has supported implementation of SCM-PM, but few data exist regarding changes in pain care resulting from implementation. We examined trends in prescribing and referral practices of primary care providers with hypotheses of decreased opioid prescribing, increased nonopioid prescribing, and increased referrals to specialty care for nonpharmacological services. Design: An initiative was designed to foster implementation and systematic evaluation of the SCM-PM over a five-year period at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) while fostering collaborative, partnered initiatives to promote organizational improvements in the delivery of pain care. Subjects: Participants were veterans receiving care at VACHS with at least one pain intensity rating ≥4/10 over the course of the study period (7/2008-6/2013). Methods: We used electronic health record data to examine changes in indicators of pain care including pharmacy and health care utilization data. Results: We observed hypothesized changes in long-term opioid and nonopioid analgesic prescribing and increased utilization of nonpharmacological treatments such as physical therapy, occupational therapy, and clinical health psychology. Conclusions: Through a multifaceted comprehensive implementation approach, primary care providers demonstrated increases in guideline-concordant pain care practices. Findings suggest that engagement of interdisciplinary teams and partnerships to promote organizational improvements is a useful strategy to increase the use of integrated, multimodal pain care for veterans, consistent with VHA's SCM-PM.

Barriers and facilitators to use of non-pharmacological treatments in chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines recommend multi-modal chronic pain treatment with increased uptake of non-pharmacological pain treatment modalities (NPMs). We aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to uptake of evidence-based NPMs from the perspectives of patients, nurses and primary care providers (PCPs). METHODS: We convened eight separate groups and engaged each in a Nominal Group Technique (NGT) in which participants: (1) created an individual list of barriers (and, in a subsequent round, facilitators) to uptake of NPMs; (2) compiled a group list from the individual lists; and (3) anonymously voted on the top three most important barriers and facilitators. In a separate process, research staff reviewed each group's responses and categorized them based on staff consensus. RESULTS: Overall, 26 patients (14 women) with chronic pain participated; their mean age was 55. Overall, 14 nurses and 12 PCPs participated. Seven healthcare professionals were men and 19 were women; the mean age was 45. We categorized barriers and facilitators as related to access, patient-provider interaction, treatment beliefs and support. Top-ranked patient-reported barriers included high cost, transportation problems and low motivation, while top-ranked facilitators included availability of a wider array of NPMs and a team-based approach that included follow-up. Top-ranked provider-reported barriers included inability to promote NPMs once opioid therapy was started and patient skepticism about efficacy of NPMs, while top-ranked facilitators included promotion of a facility-wide treatment philosophy and increased patient knowledge about risks and benefits of NPMs. CONCLUSIONS: In a multi-stakeholder qualitative study using NGT, we found a diverse array of potentially modifiable barriers and facilitators to NPM uptake that may serve as important targets for program development.