Explore the vast range of titles available.

Chronic noncancer pain includes any painful condition that persists for at least three months and is not associated with malignant disease. According to seven national surveys conducted between 1994-2008, 15%-19% of Canadian adults live with chronic noncancer pain. Chronic noncancer pain interferes with activities of daily living, has a major negative impact on quality of life and physical function, and is the leading cause of health resource utilization and disability among working-age adults. Here, Busse et al inform the prescribing of opioids for adults with chronic noncancer pain.

BACKGROUNDChronic opioid therapy for chronic pain treatment has increased. Hospital physicians, including hospitalists and medical/surgical resident physicians, care for many hospitalized patients, yet little is known about opioid prescribing at hospital discharge and future chronic opioid use.OBJECTIVEWe aimed to characterize opioid prescribing at hospital discharge among ‘opioid naïve’ patients. Opioid naïve patients had not filled an opioid prescription at an affiliated pharmacy 1 year preceding their hospital discharge. We also set out to quantify the risk of chronic opioid use and opioid refills 1 year post discharge among opioid naïve patients with and without opioid receipt at discharge.DESIGNThis was a retrospective cohort study.PARTICIPANTSFrom 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, 6,689 opioid naïve patients were discharged from a safety-net hospital.MAIN MEASUREChronic opioid use 1 year post discharge.KEY RESULTSTwenty-five percent of opioid naïve patients (n = 1,688) had opioid receipt within 72 hours of discharge. Patients with opioid receipt were more likely to have diagnoses including neoplasm (6.3 % versus 3.5 %, p < 0.001), acute pain (2.7 % versus 1.0 %, p < 0.001), chronic pain at admission (12.1 % versus 3.3 %, p < 0.001) or surgery during their hospitalization (65.1 % versus 18.4 %, p < 0.001) compared to patients without opioid receipt. Patients with opioid receipt were less likely to have alcohol use disorders (15.7 % versus 20.7 %, p < 0.001) and mental health disorders (23.9 % versus 31.4 %, p < 0.001) compared to patients without opioid receipt. Chronic opioid use 1 year post discharge was more common among patients with opioid receipt (4.1 % versus 1.3 %, p < 0.0001) compared to patients without opioid receipt. Opioid receipt was associated with increased odds of chronic opioid use (AOR = 4.90, 95 % CI 3.22-7.45) and greater subsequent opioid refills (AOR = 2.67, 95 % CI 2.29-3.13) 1 year post discharge compared to no opioid receipt.CONCLUSIONOpioid receipt at hospital discharge among opioid naïve patients increased future chronic opioid use. Physicians should inform patients of this risk prior to prescribing opioids at discharge.

Objective. There is inadequate evidence of long-term benefit and growing evidence of the risks of chronic opioid therapy (COT). Opioid dose reduction, or opioid tapering, may reduce these risks but may also worsen pain and quality of life. Our objective was to explore patients’ perspectives on opioid tapering. Design. Qualitative study using in-person, semistructured interviews. Setting and Patients. English-speaking, adult primary care patients (N = 24) in three Colorado health care systems. Methods. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti. We used a team-based, mixed inductive and deductive approach guided by the Health Belief Model. We iteratively refined emergent themes with input from a multidisciplinary team. Results. Participants had a mean age of 52 years old, were 46% male and 79% white. Six participants (25%) were on COT and not tapering, 12 (50%) were currently tapering COT, and 6 (25%) had discontinued COT. Emergent themes were organized in four domains: risks, barriers, facilitators, and benefits. Patients perceived a low risk of overdose and prioritized the more immediate risk of increased pain with opioid tapering. Barriers included a perceived lack of effectiveness of nonopioid options and fear of opioid withdrawal. Among patients with opioid tapering experience, social support and a trusted health care provider facilitated opioid tapering. These patients endorsed improved quality of life following tapering. Conclusions. Efforts to support opioid tapering should elicit patients’ perceived barriers and seek to build on relationships with family, peers, and providers to facilitate tapering. Future work should identify patient-centered, feasible strategies to support tapering of COT.

In the United States (US), long-term opioid therapy has been commonly prescribed for chronic pain. Since recognition of the opioid overdose epidemic, clinical practice guidelines have recommended tapering long-term opioids to reduced doses or discontinuation. The Effects of Prescription Opioid Changes for veterans (EPOCH) study is a national population-based prospective observational study of US Veterans Health Administration primary care patients designed to assess effects of evolving opioid prescribing practice on patients treated with long-term opioids for chronic pain. A stratified random sampling design was used to identify a survey sample from the target population of patients treated with opioid analgesics for ≥ 6 months. Demographic, diagnostic, visit, and pharmacy dispensing data were extracted from existing datasets. A 2016 mixed-mode mail and telephone survey collected patient-reported data, including the main patient-reported outcomes of pain-related function (Brief Pain Inventory interference; BPI-I scores 0-10, higher scores = worse) and health-related quality of life. Data on survey participants and non-participants were analyzed to assess potential nonresponse bias. Weights were used to account for design. Linear regression models were used to assess cross-sectional associations of opioid treatment with patient-reported measures. Of 14,160 patients contacted, 9253 (65.4%) completed the survey. Participants were older than non-participants (63.9 ± 10.6 vs. 59.6 ± 13.0 years). The mean number of bothersome pain locations was 6.8 (SE 0.04). Effectiveness of pain treatment and quality of pain care were rated fair or poor by 56.1% and 45.3%, respectively. The opioid daily dosage range was 1.6 to 1038.2 mg, with mean = 50.6 mg (SE 1.1) and median = 30.9 mg (IQR 40.7). Among the 73.2% of patients who did not receive long-acting opioids, the mean daily dosage was 30.4 mg (SE 0.6) and mean BPI-I was 6.4 (SE 00.4). Among patients who received long-acting opioids, the mean daily dosage was 106.2 mg (SE 2.8) and mean BPI-I was 6.8 (SE 0.07). Higher daily dosage was associated with worse pain-related function and quality of life among patients without long-acting opioids, but not among patients with long-acting opioids. Future analyses will use follow-up data to examine effects of opioid dose reduction and discontinuation on patient outcomes.

Chronic pain is common among Veterans, and rural Veterans commonly struggle obtaining chronic pain care due to large travel distances to the nearest Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. In 2019, the VA established the Community Care Network (CCN) to provide Veterans access to care in community-based settings, including chronic pain management. To explore the experiences of rural Veterans receiving chronic pain treatment in the VA CCN, including their perceptions about perceived barriers, facilitators, and benefits to accessing comprehensive chronic pain management. Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Ten rural Veterans receiving chronic pain management in the VA CCN took part in a qualitative interview focused on their experiences accessing and utilizing the VA CCN. A descriptive qualitative approach was used. Major themes were identified through thematic content analysis. Veterans described challenges navigating the approval process, finding approved CCN providers for pain management, and they perceived that communication between the VA and community providers was not seamless. Once enrolled in the CCN, however, Veterans valued the freedom to choose providers specializing in pain management within their local communities, timely access to appointments, and opportunities to explore a wider range of pain treatment options and alternative therapies, in addition to traditional medical interventions, all in their local community. As the CCN seeks to improve collaboration between VA and community providers, recognition of Veterans' experiences could serve to drive the development of network improvements. Findings reported here suggest that Veterans preferred obtaining care in the CCN once they could navigate administrative complexity to access it. Thus, efforts to streamline VA administrative requirements for initiating CCN care would better support Veterans in meeting their needs in this context.

Background Dissemination of evidence-based practices that can reduce morbidity and mortality is important to combat the growing opioid overdose crisis in the USA. Research and expert consensus support reducing high-dose opioid therapy, avoiding risky opioid-benzodiazepine combination therapy, and promoting multi-modal, collaborative models of pain care. Collaborative care interventions that support primary care providers have been effective in medication tapering. We developed a patient-centered Primary Care-Integrated Pain Support (PIPS) collaborative care clinical program based on effective components of previous collaborative care interventions. Implementation facilitation, a multi-faceted and dynamic strategy involving the provision of interactive problem-solving and support during implementation of a new program, is used to support key organizational staff throughout PIPS implementation. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation facilitation strategy for implementing and sustaining PIPS in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The secondary aim is to examine the effect of the program on key patient-level clinical outcomes—transitioning to safer regimens and enhancing access to complementary and integrative health treatments. The tertiary aim is to determine the categorical costs and ultimate budget impact of PIPS implementation. Methods This multi-site study employs an interrupted time series, hybrid type III design to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation facilitation for a collaborative care clinical program—PIPS—in primary care clinics in three geographically diverse VHA health care systems (sites). Participants include pharmacists and allied staff involved in the delivery of clinical pain management services as well as patients. Eligible patients are prescribed either an outpatient opioid prescription greater than or equal to 90 mg morphine equivalent daily dose or a combination opioid-benzodiazepine regimen. They must also have an upcoming appointment in primary care. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will guide the mixed methods work across the formative evaluation phases and informs the selection of activities included in implementation facilitation. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of PIPS. Discussion This implementation study will provide important insight into the effectiveness of implementation facilitation to enhance uptake of a collaborative care program in primary care, which targets unsafe opioid prescribing practices.

Abstract Background A national crisis of opioid-related morbidity, mortality, and misuse has led to initiatives to address the appropriate role of opioids to treat pain. Deployment of a guideline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reduce the risks of opioid therapy has raised substantial clinical and public policy challenges. The agency anticipated implementation challenges and committed to reevaluating the guideline for intended and unintended effects on clinician and patient outcomes. Observations A multidisciplinary expert panel met to review the influence of the core recommendations of the guideline on pain management practices, principally regarding the estimated 5 to 8 million Americans with chronic pain currently on opioids. The panel identified implementation challenges, including application of dosage ceilings and prescription duration guidance, failure to appreciate the importance of patient involvement in decisions to taper or discontinue opioids, barriers to diagnosis and treatment of opioid use disorder, and impeded access to recommended comprehensive, multimodal pain care. Furthermore, policy-making and regulatory bodies may misapply guideline recommendations without flexibility and, sometimes, without full awareness of what the guideline contains. Conclusions and Relevance The panel largely supported the guideline, endorsing its focal points of safety and comprehensive assessment and monitoring. To mitigate clinical and policy challenges identified with implementing the guideline, the panel discussed areas where viewpoints diverged and arrived at consensus proposals. The target audience includes the leaders and institutions that create policy and influence guideline implementation to include regulatory agencies, legislators, public and private payers, and health care systems.

Background Chronic pain is among the most common conditions presenting to primary care and guideline-based care faces several challenges. A novel pain management program, Video-Telecare Collaborative Pain Management (VCPM), was established to support primary care providers and meet new challenges to care presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods The present single-arm feasibility study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of VCPM and its components among U.S. veterans on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain at ≥ 50 mg morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD). VCPM consists of evidence-based interventions, including opioid reassessment and tapering, rotation to buprenorphine and monitoring, and encouraging behavioral pain and opioid-use disorder self-management. Results Of the 133 patients outreached for VPCM, 44 completed an initial intake (33%) and 19 attended multiple VCPM appointments (14%). Patients were generally satisfied with VCPM, virtual modalities, and provider interactions. Nearly all patients who attended multiple appointments maintained a buprenorphine switch or tapered opioids (16/19; 84%), and buprenorphine switches were generally reported as acceptable by patients. Patients completing an initial intake with VCPM had reduced morphine equivalent daily dose after three months (means = 109 mg MEDD vs 78 mg), with greater reductions among those who attended multiple appointments compared to intake only (Δ MEDD  = -58.1 vs. -8.40). Finally, 29 referrals were placed for evidence-based non-pharmacologic interventions. Conclusion Pre-defined feasibility and acceptability targets for VCPM and its components were broadly met, and preliminary data are encouraging. Novel strategies to improve enrollment and engagement and future directions are discussed.

PRISM is useful to identify contextual factors that influence implementation, modification, uptake, and evaluation of health services programs.AbstractThere is consensus in dissemination and implementation (D&I) science that addressing contextual factors is critically important for understanding translation of health care delivery interventions but little agreement on which contextual factors are key determinants of implementation outcomes. We describe the application of the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), which expands the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to identify contextual factors across four diverse programs. Multiple qualitative methods were used to collect multilevel, multistakeholder perspectives from the adopting organizations and staff. We identified measures for evaluating context through the various domains of PRISM to guide health services research across the phases of program implementation. The PRISM domains of Recipients, Implementation and Sustainability Infrastructure, and External Environment identified important multilevel contextual factors, including variability in operational processes and available resources. These domains helped to facilitate planning and implementation phases of the four interventions and guide purposeful adaptations. We found assessments of PRISM domains useful to systematically assess multilevel contextual factors across various content areas as well as phases of program implementation. Additionally, these contextual factors were found to be relevant to RE-AIM outcomes. Lessons learned can be applied to future research as there is a need to investigate the measurement properties of PRISM and continue to test which contextual factors are most important to successful implementation and for which outcomes.

BackgroundThere is inadequate evidence of long-term benefit from opioid medications for chronic pain and substantial evidence of potential harms. For patients, dose reduction may be beneficial when implemented voluntarily and supported by a multidisciplinary team but experts have advised against involuntary opioid reduction.ObjectivesTo assess the prevalence of self-reported involuntary opioid reduction and to examine whether involuntary opioid reduction is associated with changes in pain severity.DesignProspective observational cohort study.ParticipantsPrimary care patients treated with long-term opioid therapy in the Veterans Health Administration (N = 290).Main MeasuresThe primary exposure was self-reported past year involuntary opioid reduction. The primary outcome was the three-item PEG scale, which measures past-week average pain intensity and interference with enjoyment of life and general activity.Key ResultsPast year opioid reduction or discontinuation was reported by 63% (184/290). Similar numbers reported involuntary (88/290) and voluntary (96/290) opioid reduction. At baseline, there were no significant differences in pain severity between the groups (mean PEG, 7.08 vs. 6.73 vs. 7.07 for past year involuntary opioid reduction, past year voluntary opioid reduction, and no past year opioid reduction, respectively; P = 0.32). For the primary outcome of change in pain severity from baseline to 18 months, there were no significant differences between groups (mean PEG change, − 0.05 vs. − 0.44 vs. − 0.23 for past year involuntary opioid reduction, past year voluntary opioid reduction, and no past year opioid reduction, respectively; P = 0.28).ConclusionsSelf-reported past year involuntary opioid reduction was common among a national sample of veterans treated with long-term opioid therapy. Opioid dose reduction, whether involuntary or voluntary, was not associated with change in pain severity. Future studies should examine involuntary opioid reduction in different populations and trends over time and explore further patient- and provider-level factors that may impact patient experience and outcomes during opioid reduction.