Healthcare provider knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes regarding opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in North America prior to the emergence of COVID-19: A systematic review of qualitative research.

Background: Balance between benefits and harms of using opioids for the management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) must be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. There is no one-size-fits-all approach that can be executed by prescribers and clinicians when considering this therapy. Aim: The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for prescribing opioids for CNCP through a systematic review of qualitative literature. Methods: Six databases were searched from inception to June 2019 for qualitative studies reporting on provider knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, or practices pertaining to prescribing opioids for CNCP in North America. Data were extracted, risk of bias was rated, and confidence in evidence was graded. Results: Twenty-seven studies reporting data from 599 health care providers were included. Ten themes emerged that influenced clinical decision making when prescribing opioids. Providers were more comfortable to prescribe opioids when (1) patients were actively engaged in pain self-management, (2) clear institutional prescribing policies were present and prescription drug monitoring programs were used, (3) long-standing relationships and strong therapeutic alliance were present, and (4) interprofessional supports were available. Factors that reduced likelihood of prescribing opioids included (1) uncertainty toward subjectivity of pain and efficacy of opioids, (2) concern for the patient (e.g., adverse effects) and community (i.e., diversion), (3) previous negative experiences (e.g., receiving threats), (4) difficulty enacting guidelines, and (5) organizational barriers (e.g., insufficient appointment duration and lengthy documentation). Conclusions: Understanding barriers and facilitators that influence opioid-prescribing practices offers insight into modifiable targets for interventions that can support providers in delivering care consistent with practice guidelines.

Contexte: L'équilibre entre les avantages et les inconvénients de l'utilisation d'opioïdes pour la prise en charge de la douleur chronique non cancéreuse (CNCP) doit être soigneusement examiné au cas par cas. Il n'existe pas d'approche uniforme pouvant être adoptée par les prescripteurs et les cliniciens lorsqu'ils envisagent cette thérapie.Objectif: L'objectif de cette étude était de recenser les obstacles et les facilitateurs pour la prescription d'opioïdes pour la douleur chronique non cancéreuse par une revue systématique de la littérature qualitative.Méthodes: Six bases de données ont été consultées pour la période allant de leur création jusqu'en juin 2019 afin d'y repérer les rapports d'études qualitatives sur les connaissances, les attitudes, les croyances ou les pratiques des prestataires en matière de prescription d'opioïdes pour la douleur chronique non cancéreuse en Amérique du Nord. Les données ont été extraites, le risque de biais a été évalué et la confiance envers les données probantes a été notée.Résultats: Vingt-sept études faisant état de données provenant de 599 prestataires de soins de santé ont été incluses. Dix thèmes influençant la prise de décision clinique lors de la prescription d'opioïdes ont émergé. Les prestataires étaient plus à l'aise pour prescrire des opioïdes lorsque (1) les patients étaient activement engagés dans la prise en charge de la douleur, (2) des politiques de prescription institutionnelles claires et des programmes de surveillance des médicaments d'ordonnance étaient en place, (3) des relations de longue date et une alliance thérapeutique forte étaient présentes, et (4) du soutien interprofessionnel était disponible. Les facteurs qui réduisaient la probabilité de la prescription d'opioïdes comprenaient (1) l'incertitude à l'égard de la subjectivité de la douleur et de l'efficacité des opioïdes, (2) une préoccupation pour le patient (p. ex., effets indésirables) et la collectivité (p. ex., détournement), (3) des expériences négatives antérieures (p. ex., recevoir des menaces), (4) des difficultés à adopter des lignes directrices et (5) des obstacles organisationnels (p. ex., durée insuffisante des rendez-vous et longueur de la documentation).Conclusions: La compréhension des obstacles et des facilitateurs qui influencent les pratiques de prescription d'opioïdes permet d'avoir un aperçu des cibles modifiables pour les interventions qui peuvent aider les prestataires à fournir des soins conformes aux directives de pratique.

Veterinary Education's Role in the Opioid Epidemic: Integration of an Online Safe Opioid Prescribing Course into the Core Curriculum.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, the opioid epidemic has worsened. Opioid-related deaths continue to rise, and many of these deaths can be traced to a prescription opioid. Because veterinarians prescribe opioids, many organizations and federal agencies have called for increased veterinary education on the topic. In this teaching tip, we review the current literature surrounding the veterinary profession's link to the opioid epidemic and one potential way that educational institutions can successfully and efficiently incorporate safe opioid prescribing training into the curriculum using an online course.

Rapid Adoption of Telemedicine Increases Opioid Prescribing in Orthopedic Surgery.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to health care practitioners utilizing new technologies to deliver health care, including telemedicine. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of rapidly proliferative use of video visits on opioid prescribing to orthopedic patients at a large academic health system that had existing procedure-specific opioid prescribing guidelines. Methods: This IRB-exempt study examined 651 opioid prescriptions written to patients who had video (visual and audio), telephone (audio only), or in-person encounters at our institution from March 1 to June 1, 2020 and compared them with 963 prescriptions written during the same months in 2019. Prescriptions were converted into daily milligram morphine equivalents (MMEs) to facilitate direct comparison. Chi-square testing was used to compare categorical data, whereas analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare numerical data between groups. Statistical significance was set at <0.05. Results: Six hundred fifty-one of 1,614 prescriptions analyzed (40.3%) occurred during the pandemic. Patients prescribed opioids during video visits were prescribed 53.3 ± 37 MME, significantly higher than in-person (p = 0.002) or audio visits (p < 0.001) before or during the pandemic. Prepandemic, significantly higher MME were prescribed for in-person versus audio only visits (41.6 ± 89 vs. 30.2 ± 28 MME; p = 0.026); during the pandemic, there was no difference between these groups (p = 0.91). Significantly higher MME were prescribed by Nurse Practitioners and Physician Associates versus MD or DO prescribers for both time periods (51.3 ± 109 vs. 27.9 ± 42 MME; p < 0.001; 42.9 ± 70 vs. 28.2 ± 42 MME; p < 0.001). Conclusion: During crisis and with new technology, we should be vigilant about prescribing of opioid analgesics. Despite well-established protocols, patients received significantly higher MME through video than for other encounter types, including in-person encounters. In addition, significantly higher MME were prescribed by mid-level prescribers compared with DOs or MDs. Institutions should ensure these prescribers are involved during creation of opioid prescribing protocols after orthopedic surgery.

The impact of COVID-19 on analgesic prescribing in an urban emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Providers across the country have significantly decreased opioid prescribing over the past decade to prevent opioid misuse. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a disruption of the healthcare system and changes in the relationships between patients and providers. Consequently, we sought to investigate whether the pandemic had any impact on analgesic prescribing in an urban emergency department. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single center study analyzing pharmacy records of patients that were treated with analgesics between January 2019 and May 2021. The most common analgesics utilized were tallied by month. Utilization of specific analgesics were compared between T1-pre-COVID-19 (1/2019-1/2020) and T2-post-COVID 19 (5/2020-5/2021). Analgesics were also categorized into broader categories (such as IV, oral, opioid, and non-opioid) and compared. Comparisons were analyzed using the t-test, Mann-Whitney u test, or chi-squared difference of proportions tests, as applicable. RESULTS: There were significant decreases in the amount of IV (7.2% vs. 6.5; p = 0.039) and oral opioid (2.6% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.001) administered during COVID-19. There were also decreases in the percent of patients given opioids (T1: 6.7 vs. T2: 4.6, p < 0.001). During COVID, there was an increase in the amount of non-opioid analgesics given per patient (p = 0.013). Particularly, there was an increase in the amount of oral non-opioid administrations per patient (p = 0.005). There was a decrease in utilization of ibuprofen between the two time periods (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the pandemic, providers continued to decrease opioid prescribing and increase non-opioid prescribing.

Outpatient Opioid and Naloxone Prescribing Practices at an Academic Medical Center during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

While improving opioid safety has been a national priority, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been associated with increased rates of opioid overdose. The present study characterized outpatient opioid and naloxone prescribing patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective chart review was conducted of adult patients receiving opioid therapy between August 2020 through October 2020 from outpatient clinics within a Texas health system. The primary outcome was naloxone co-prescription during the study period or within the year prior. During the study period, 1,368 patients received an opioid prescription, most of which were prescribed for chronic pain treatment (63.0%). Most opioid prescriptions (91.5%) were written for < 50 MME/day. For prescriptions written for acute pain, 78% were written for ≤ 10 days supply. While 31.1% of patients received gabapentinoid prescriptions, few (7.9%) received benzodiazepine or Z-hypnotic prescriptions. Twenty-two (1.6%) patients were co-prescribed naloxone. In this study, naloxone was rarely prescribed for outpatients receiving opioid prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health systems should continue to prioritize adherence to evidence-based clinical guidelines and increase access to naloxone.

Reduced Opioid Use and Prescribing in a Same Day Discharge Pilot Enhanced Recovery Program for Elective Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgical Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) are associated with reduced complications and length of stay. The validation of the I-FEED scoring system, advances in perioperative anesthesia, multimodal analgesia, and telehealth remote monitoring have resulted in further evolution of ERPs setting the stage for same day discharge (SDD). Pioneers and early adopters have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of SDD programs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of a pilot SDD ERP on patient self-reported pain scoring and narcotic usage. METHODS: A quality improvement pilot program was conducted to assess the impact of a SDD ERP on post-operative pain score reporting and opioid use in healthy patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery as an alternative to post-operative hospitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic (May 2020-December 2021). Patients were monitored remotely with daily telephone visits on POD 1-7 assessing the following variables: I-FEED score, pain score, pain management, bowel function, dietary advancement, any complications, and/or re-admissions. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients met the highly selective eligibility criteria for "healthy patient, healthy anastomosis." SDD occurred in 70%. The remaining 30% were discharged on POD 1. Mean total narcotic usage was 5.2 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone despite relatively high reported pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: In our initial experience, SDD is associated with significantly lower patient narcotic utilization for postoperative pain management than hypothesized. This pilot SDD program resulted in a change in clinical practice with reduction of prescribed discharge oxycodone 5 mg quantity from #40 to #10 tablets.

The Balanced Opioid Initiative: protocol for a clustered, sequential, multiple-assignment randomized trial to construct an adaptive implementation strategy to improve guideline-concordant opioid prescribing in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Rates of opioid prescribing tripled in the USA between 1999 and 2015 and were associated with significant increases in opioid misuse and overdose death. Roughly half of all opioids are prescribed in primary care. Although clinical guidelines describe recommended opioid prescribing practices, implementing these guidelines in a way that balances safety and effectiveness vs. risk remains a challenge. The literature offers little help about which implementation strategies work best in different clinical settings or how strategies could be tailored to optimize their effectiveness in different contexts. Systems consultation consists of (1) educational/engagement meetings with audit and feedback reports, (2) practice facilitation, and (3) prescriber peer consulting. The study is designed to discover the most cost-effective sequence and combination of strategies for improving opioid prescribing practices in diverse primary care clinics. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a hybrid type 3 clustered, sequential, multiple-assignment randomized trial (SMART) that randomizes clinics from two health systems at two points, months 3 and 9, of a 21-month intervention. Clinics are provided one of four sequences of implementation strategies: a condition consisting of educational/engagement meetings and audit and feedback alone (EM/AF), EM/AF plus practice facilitation (PF), EM/AF + prescriber peer consulting (PPC), and EM/AF + PF + PPC. The study's primary outcome is morphine-milligram equivalent (MME) dose by prescribing clinicians within clinics. The study's primary aim is the comparison of EM/AF + PF + PPC versus EM/AF alone on change in MME from month 3 to month 21. The secondary aim is to derive cost estimates for each of the four sequences and compare them. The exploratory aim is to examine four tailoring variables that can be used to construct an adaptive implementation strategy to meet the needs of different primary care clinics. DISCUSSION: Systems consultation is a practical blend of implementation strategies used in this case to improve opioid prescribing practices in primary care. The blend offers a range of strategies in sequences from minimally to substantially intensive. The results of this study promise to help us understand how to cost effectively improve the implementation of evidence-based practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04044521 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Registered 05 August 2019.