Search

Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) including buprenorphine are effective, but underutilized. Rural patients experience pronounced disparities in access. To reach rural patients, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has sought to expand buprenorphine prescribing beyond specialty settings and into primary care. Objective: Although challenges remain, some rural VA health care systems have begun offering opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment with buprenorphine in primary care. We conducted interviews with clinicians, leaders, and staff within these systems to understand how this outcome had been achieved. Design: Using administrative data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), we identified rural VA health care systems that had improved their rate of primary care–based buprenorphine prescribing over the period 2015–2020. We conducted qualitative interviews (n = 30) with staff involved in implementing or prescribing buprenorphine in these systems to understand the processes that had facilitated implementation. Participants: Clinicians, staff, and leaders embedded within rural VA health care systems located in the Northwest, West, Midwest (2), South, and Northeast. Approach: Qualitative interviews were analyzed using a mixed inductive/deductive approach. Key Results: Interviews revealed the processes through which buprenorphine was integrated into primary care, as well as processes insufficient to enact change. Implementation was often initially catalyzed through a targeted hire. Champions then engaged clinicians and leaders one-on-one to "pitch" the case, describe concordance between buprenorphine prescribing and existing goals, and delineate the supportive role that they could provide. Sites were prepared for implementation by developing new clinical teams and redesigning clinical processes. Each of these processes was made possible with the active, instrumental support of leadership. Conclusions: Results suggest that rural systems seeking to improve buprenorphine accessibility in primary care may need to alter primary care structures to accommodate buprenorphine prescribing, whether through new hires, team development, or clinical redesign. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-provider shared decision-making is associated with better treatment adherence and pain outcomes in opioid-specific pain management. One possible mechanism through which shared decision-making may impact pain management outcomes is trust in one's prescribing provider. Elucidating relationships between factors that enhance the patient-provider relationship, such as shared decision-making and trust, may reduce risks associated with opioid treatment, such as opioid misuse. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the mediating effect of trust in one's prescribing provider on the relationship between shared decision-making and current opioid misuse. Design: A secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study of US Veterans (N = 1273) prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic non-cancer pain. Participants: Eligibility criteria included being prescribed LTOT, ability to speak and read English, and access to a telephone. Veterans were excluded if they had a cancer diagnosis, received opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder, or evidence of pending discontinuation of LTOT. Stratified random sampling was employed to oversample racial and ethnic minorities and women veterans. Main Measures: Physician Participatory Decision-Making assessed level of patient involvement in medical decision-making, the Trust in Provider Scale assessed interpersonal trust in patient-provider relationships, and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure assessed opioid misuse. Key Results: Patient-provider shared decision-making had a total significant effect on opioid misuse, in the absence of the mediator (c = − 0.243, p < 0.001), such that higher levels of shared decision-making were associated with lower levels of reported opioid misuse. When trust in provider was added to the mediation model, the indirect effect of shared decision-making on opioid misuse through trust in provider remained significant (c′ = − 0.147, p = 0.007). Conclusions: Shared decision-making is associated with less prescription opioid misuse through the trust that is fostered between patients and providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For patients with opioid use disorder (OUD), medications for OUD (MOUD) reduce morbidity, mortality, and return to use. Nevertheless, a minority of patients receive MOUD, and underutilization is pronounced among rural patients. Objective: While Veterans Health Administration (VHA) initiatives have improved MOUD access overall, it is unknown whether access has improved in rural VA health systems specifically. How "Community Care," healthcare paid for by VHA but received from non-VA providers, has affected rural access is also unknown. Design: Data for this observational study were drawn from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse. Facility rurality was defined by rural-urban commuting area code of the primary medical center. International Classification of Diseases codes identified patients with OUD within each year, 2015–2020. We included MOUD (buprenorphine, methadone, extended-release naltrexone) received from VHA or paid for by VHA but received at non-VA facilities through Community Care. We calculated average yearly MOUD receipt; linear regression of outcomes on study years identified trends; an interaction between year and rural status evaluated trend differences over time. Participants: All 129 VHA Health Systems, a designation that encompasses one or more medical centers and their affiliated community-based outpatient clinics Main Measures: The average proportion of patients diagnosed with OUD that receive MOUD within rural versus urban VHA health care systems. Key Results: From 2015 to 2020, MOUD access increased substantially: the average proportion of patients receiving MOUD increased from 34.6 to 48.9%, with a similar proportion of patients treated with MOUD in rural and urban systems in all years. Overall, a small proportion (1.8%) of MOUD was provided via Community Care, and Community Care did not disproportionately benefit rural health systems. Conclusions: Strategies utilized by VHA could inform other health care systems seeking to ensure that, regardless of geographic location, all patients are able to access MOUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interventions to reduce harms related to prescription opioids are needed in primary care settings. Objective: To determine whether a multicomponent intervention, Improving the safety of opioid therapy (ISOT), is efficacious in reducing prescription opioid harms. Design: Clinician-level, cluster randomized clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02791399) Setting: Eight primary care clinics at 1 Veterans Affairs health care system. Participants: Thirty-five primary care clinicians and 286 patients who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Intervention: All clinicians participated in a 2-hour educational session on patient-centered care surrounding opioid adherence monitoring and were randomly assigned to education only or ISOT. ISOT is a multicomponent intervention that included a one-time consultation by an external clinician to the patient with monitoring and feedback to clinicians over 12 months. Main Measures: The primary outcomes were changes in risk for prescription opioid misuse (Current Opioid Misuse Measure) and urine drug test results. Secondary outcomes were quality of the clinician-patient relationship, other prescription opioid safety outcomes, changes in clinicians' opioid prescribing characteristics, and a non-inferiority analysis of changes in pain intensity and functioning. Key Results: ISOT did not decrease risk for prescription opioid misuse (difference between groups = −1.12, p = 0.097), likelihood of an aberrant urine drug test result (difference between groups = −0.04, p=0.401), or measures of the clinician-patient relationship. Participants allocated to ISOT were more likely to discontinue prescription opioids (20.0% versus 8.1%, p = 0.007). ISOT did not worsen participant-reported scores of pain intensity or function. Conclusions: ISOT did not impact risk for prescription opioid misuse but did lead to increased likelihood of prescription opioid discontinuation. More intensive interventions may be needed to impact treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prior research has identified factors associated with prescription opioid initiation, but little is known about the prevalence or predictors of dose escalation among patients already prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Objective: This was a 2-year prospective cohort study to examine patient and clinician factors associated with opioid dose escalation. Design: A prospective cohort study. Participants were seen at baseline and every 6 months for a total of 2 years. Participants: Patients prescribed a stable dose of LTOT for musculoskeletal pain were recruited from two integrated health systems (Kaiser Permanente and the Department of Veterans Affairs, respectively). Main Measures: The prescription opioid dose was based on pharmacy records and self-report. Administrative data were gathered on characteristics of the opioid-prescribing clinician and healthcare utilization. Participants completed measures of pain, functioning, and quality of life. Key Results: Of enrolled participants (n = 517), 19.5% had an opioid dose increase. In multivariate analyses, patient variables associated with dose escalation were lower opioid dose (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79–0.94, for every 10-mg increase in baseline dose) and greater pain catastrophizing (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 1.01–1.05). Other variables associated with dose escalation were as follows: receiving medications from a nurse practitioner primary care provider (HR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.12–3.96) or specialty physician (HR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.22–8.34), relative to a physician primary care provider, and having undergone surgery within the past 6 months (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.10–2.94). Other variables, including pain intensity, pain disability, or depression, were not associated with dose escalation. Conclusions: In this 2-year prospective cohort study, variables associated with opioid dose escalation were lower opioid dose, higher pain catastrophizing, receiving opioids from a medical specialist (rather than primary care clinician) or nurse practitioner, and having recently undergone surgery. Study findings highlight intervention points that may be helpful for reducing the likelihood of future prescription opioid dose escalation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Biofeedback is increasingly used to treat clinical conditions in a wide range of settings; however, evidence supporting its use remains unclear. The purpose of this evidence map is to illustrate the conditions supported by controlled trials, those that are not, and those in need of more research.Methods: We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and EBM Reviews through September 2018) for good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback for clinical conditions. We included the highest quality, most recent review representing each condition and included only controlled trials from those reviews. We relied on quality ratings reported in included reviews. Outcomes of interest were condition-specific, secondary, and global health outcomes, and harms. For each review, we computed confidence ratings and categorized reported findings as no effect, unclear, or insufficient; evidence of a potential positive effect; or evidence of a positive effect. We present our findings in the form of evidence maps.Results: We included 16 good-quality systematic reviews examining biofeedback alone or as an adjunctive intervention. We found clear, consistent evidence across a large number of trials that biofeedback can reduce headache pain and can provide benefit as adjunctive therapy to men experiencing urinary incontinence after a prostatectomy. Consistent evidence across fewer trials suggests biofeedback may improve fecal incontinence and stroke recovery. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about effects for most conditions including bruxism, labor pain, and Raynaud's. Biofeedback was not beneficial for urinary incontinence in women, nor for hypertension management, but these conclusions are limited by small sample sizes and methodologic limitations of these studies.Discussion: Available evidence suggests that biofeedback is effective for improving urinary incontinence after prostatectomy and headache, and may provide benefit for fecal incontinence and balance and stroke recovery. Further controlled trials across a wide range of conditions are indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence has continued to accumulate regarding the potential risks of treating chronic pain with long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). Clinical practice guidelines now encourage clinicians to implement practices designed to reduce opioid-related risks. Yet how clinicians implement these guidelines within the context of the patient encounter has received little attention.Objective: This secondary analysis aimed to identify and describe clinicians' strategies for managing prescription opioid misuse and aberrant behaviors among patients prescribed LTOT for chronic pain.Design: Individual interviews guided by a semi-structured interview protocol probed: (1) methods clinicians utilize to reduce prescription opioid misuse and address aberrant opioid-related behaviors; (2) how clinicians respond to misuse; and (3) resources and constraints faced in managing and treating misuse among their patients.Participants: Interviews were conducted with 24 physicians and nurse practitioners, representing 22 Veterans Health Administration (VA) facilities across the USA, who had one or more patients in their clinical panels who were prescribed LTOT for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain.Approach: Qualitative content analysis was the analytic approach utilized. A codebook was developed iteratively following group coding and discussion. All transcripts were coded with the finalized codebook. Quotes pertaining to key themes were retrieved and, following careful review, sorted into themes, which were then further categorized into sub-themes. Quotes that exemplified key sub-themes were selected for inclusion.Key Results: We detail the challenges clinicians describe in navigating conversations with patients around prescription opioid misuse, which include patient objection as well as clinician ambivalence. We identify verbal heuristics as one strategy clinicians utilize to structure these difficult conversations, and describe four heuristics: setting expectations, following orders, safety, and standardization.Conclusion: Clinicians frequently use verbal heuristics to routinize and increase the efficiency of care management discussions related to opioid prescribing, redirect responsibility, and defuse the potential emotional charge of the encounter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about pain care offered to patients discontinued from long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) by their prescriber due to aberrant behaviors versus other reasons.Objective: This study aimed to compare rates of non-opioid analgesic pharmacotherapy initiation and clinician referrals for non-pharmacologic pain treatment, complementary and integrative pain therapies, and specialty mental health and substance use disorder treatment between patients discontinued from opioid therapy due to aberrant behaviors versus other reasons.Design: The design included retrospective manual electronic health record review and administrative data abstraction.Participants: Patients were sampled from a national cohort of US Department of Veterans Affairs patients prescribed continuous opioid therapy in 2011 who subsequently discontinued opioid therapy in 2012. The study sample comprised 509 patients discontinued from LTOT by opioid-prescribing clinicians.Main Measures: The primary independent variable was reason for discontinuation of LTOT (aberrant behaviors versus other reasons). Pain care dichotomous outcomes included clinician use of an opioid taper; initiating new non-opioid analgesic pharmacotherapy; and referrals for non-pharmacologic pain treatment, complementary and integrative pain therapies, and specialty mental health and substance use disorder treatment.Key Results: We observed low rates of opioid taper (15% of patients), initiations of new or modifications of existing non-opioid analgesic pharmacotherapy (45% of patients), and clinician referrals for non-pharmacologic pain treatment (58% of patients) and complementary and integrative therapies (25% of patients). Patients discontinued due to aberrant behaviors, relative to patients discontinued for other reasons, were more likely to receive opioid tapers (adjusted OR = 5.60, 95% CI = 2.10-14.93), receive new non-opioid analgesic medications or dose changes to an existing non-opioid analgesic medications (adjusted OR = 2.61, 95% CI = 1.59-4.29), or be referred for specialty substance use disorder treatment (adjusted OR = 7.39, 95% CI = 3.76-14.53).Conclusions: These findings highlight the variability in referral rates for different types of non-opioid pain treatments and challenges accessing specific types of pain care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Non-pharmacologic treatments (NPTs) are recommended for chronic pain. Information is limited on patient use or perceptions of NPTs. We examined the frequency and correlates of use and self-rated helpfulness of NPTs for chronic pain among patients who are prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT).Methods: Participants (n = 517) with musculoskeletal pain who were prescribed LTOT were recruited from two integrated health systems. They rated the frequency and utility of six clinician-directed and five self-directed NPTs for chronic pain. We categorized NPT use at four levels based on number of interventions used and frequency of use (none, low, moderate, high). Analyses examined clinical and demographic factors that differed among groups for both clinician-directed and self-directed NPTs.Results: Seventy-one percent of participants reported use of any NPT for pain within the prior 6 months. NPTs were rated as being helpful by more than 50% of users for all treatments assessed (range 51-79%). High users of clinician-directed NPTs were younger than non-users or low-frequency users and had the most depressive symptoms. In both clinician-directed and self-directed categories, high NPT users had significantly higher pain disability compared to non-NPT users. No significant group differences were detected on other demographic or clinical variables. In multivariable analyses, clinician-directed NPT use was modestly associated with younger age (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96-0.98) and higher pain disability (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.00-1.02). Variables associated with greater self-directed NPT use were some college education (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.13-2.84), college graduate or more (OR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.20-3.40), and higher pain disability (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.01-1.02).Conclusions: NPT use was associated with higher pain disability and younger age for both clinician-directed and self-directed NPTs and higher education for self-directed NPTs. These strategies were rated as helpful by those that used them. These results can inform intervention implementation and be used to increase engagement in NPTs for chronic pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is unclear whether substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is offered to, or utilized by, patients who are discontinued from long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) following aberrant urine drug tests (UDTs).Objective: To describe the proportion of patients who were referred to, and engaged in, SUD treatment following LTOT discontinuation and to examine differences in SUD treatment referral and engagement based on the substances that led to discontinuation.Design: From a sample of 600 patients selected from a national cohort of Veterans Health Administration patients who were discontinued from LTOT, we used manual chart review to identify 169 patients who were discontinued because of a UDT that was positive for alcohol, cannabis, or other illicit or non-prescribed controlled substances.Main Measures: We extracted sociodemographic, clinical, and health care utilization data from patients' electronic medical records.Key Results: Forty-three percent of patients (n = 73) received an SUD treatment referral following LTOT discontinuation and 20% (n = 34) engaged in a new episode of SUD treatment in the year following discontinuation. Logistic regression models controlling for sociodemographic and clinical variables demonstrated that patients who tested positive for cannabis were less likely than patients who tested positive for non-cannabis substances to receive referrals for SUD treatment (aOR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.23-0.84, p = 0.01) or engage in SUD treatment (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.19-0.94, p = 0.04). Conversely, those who tested positive for cocaine were more likely to receive an SUD treatment referral (aOR = 3.32, 95% CI = 1.57-7.06, p = 0.002) and engage in SUD treatment (aOR = 2.44, 95% CI = 1.00-5.96, p = 0.05) compared to those who did not have a cocaine-positive UDT.Conclusions: There may be substance-specific differences in clinician referrals to, and patient engagement in, SUD treatment. This suggests a need for more standardized implementation of clinical guidelines that recommend SUD care, when appropriate, following LTOT discontinuation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: urine drug testing; long-term opioid therapy; chronic pain; primary care EN urine drug testing long-term opioid therapy chronic pain primary care 243 244 2 02/05/21 20210101 NES 210101 INTRODUCTION Urine drug testing (UDT) is a standard recommendation for those prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for pain,[1] but remains underutilized.[2] Clinician fears regarding negative patient perceptions have been identified as a barrier to conducting UDT;[3] however, little is known about patient perspectives of UDT. For some, guidelines in the opioid treatment agreement primed their expectations for UDT; others couched their beliefs within the context of the opioid crisis, "... they're absolutely necessary. Urine drug testing, long-term opioid therapy, chronic pain, primary care. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) have high rates of substance use disorders (SUD). SUD complicates pain treatment and may lead to worse outcomes. However, little information is available describing adherence to opioid treatment guidelines for CNCP generally, or guideline adherence for patients with comorbid SUD.Objective: Examine adherence to clinical guidelines for opioid therapy over 12 months, comparing patients with SUD diagnoses made during the prior year to patients without SUD.Design: Cohort study.Participants: Administrative data were collected from veterans with CNCP receiving treatment within a Veterans Affairs regional healthcare network who were prescribed chronic opioid therapy in 2008 (n = 5814).Key Results: Twenty percent of CNCP patients prescribed chronic opioid therapy had a prior-year diagnosis of SUD. Patients with SUD were more likely to have pain diagnoses and psychiatric comorbidities. In adjusted analyses, patients with SUD were more likely than those without SUD to have had a mental health appointment (29.7% versus 17.2%, OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.26-1.77) and a urine drug screen (UDS) (47.0% versus 18.2%, OR = 3.53, 95% CI = 3.06-4.06) over 12 months. There were no significant differences between groups on receiving more intensive treatment in primary care (63.4% versus 61.0%), long-acting opioids (26.9% versus 26.0%), prescriptions for antidepressants (88.2% versus 85.8%, among patients with depression), or participating in physical therapy (30.6% versus 28.6%). Only 35% of patients with SUD received substance abuse treatment.Conclusions: CNCP patients with SUD were more likely to have mental health appointments and receive UDS monitoring, but not more likely to participate in other aspects of pain care compared to those without SUD. Given data suggesting patients with comorbid SUD may need more intensive treatment to achieve improvements in pain-related function, SUD patients may be at high risk for poor outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the rapid changes in the legalization of cannabis in the U.S., there is an urgent need to understand clinical outcomes and processes of care among patients who use cannabis, particularly among patients with chronic pain who are high utilizers of cannabis. Electronic health records (EHRs) are a common and convenient mechanism for examining processes of care; however, there is not an indication for cannabis use that does not meet criteria for a diagnostic disorder. We used urine drug test (UDT) results identified through EHRs to identify patients with confirmed cannabis use. We developed and tested an algorithm to identify outcomes of UDT results for cannabis because there is wide variability in reporting methodology, including in multi-site health systems. Among all patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who were prescribed long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain, we identified a random sample who completed UDT for cannabis. Through an iterative process, we developed an algorithm to identify UDT cannabis results. Manual review of EHR data was conducted to verify accuracy of UDT results. The final UDT algorithm correctly identified 99% of cannabis positive UDT results and 100% of cannabis negative UDT results among 200 randomly sampled patients. Study findings suggest a high degree of accuracy for using an algorithm to identify samples of patients with positive cannabis UDT results across multiple institutions with disparate UDT reporting practices. The methodology for testing this algorithm is feasible and may be applied to other multi-site health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]