Identifying individuals with opioid use disorder: Validity of International Classification of Diseases diagnostic codes for opioid use, dependence and abuse.

BACKGROUND: Policy evaluations and health system interventions often utilize International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes of opioid use, dependence, and abuse to identify individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and assess receipt of evidence-based treatments. However, ICD codes may not map directly onto the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5) OUD criteria. This study investigates the positive predictive value of ICD codes in identifying patients with OUD. METHODS: We conducted a clinical chart review on a national sample of 520 Veterans assigned ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse from 2012 to 2017. We extracted evidence of DSM-5 OUD criteria and opioid misuse from clinical documentation in the month preceding and three months following initial ICD code listing, and categorized patients into: 1) high likelihood of OUD, 2) limited aberrant opioid use, 3) prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 4) insufficient information. Positive predictive value was calculated as the percentage of individuals with these ICD codes meeting high likelihood of OUD criteria upon chart review. RESULTS: Only 57.7 % of patients were categorized as high likelihood of OUD; 16.5 % were categorized as limited aberrant opioid use, 18.9 % prescribed opioid use without evidence of aberrant use, and 6.9 % insufficient information. CONCLUSIONS: Patients assigned ICD codes for opioid use, dependence, or abuse often lack documentation of meeting OUD criteria. Many receive long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain without evidence of misuse. Robust methods of identifying individuals with OUD are crucial to improving access to clinically appropriate treatment.

A physician-pharmacist collaborative care model to prevent opioid misuse.

PURPOSE: Clinical pharmacists in primary care clinics can potentially help manage chronic pain and opioid prescriptions by providing services similar to those provided within their scope of practice to patients with diabetes and hypertension. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a pharmacist-physician collaborative care model for patients with chronic pain. METHODS: The program consisted of an in-person pharmacist consultation and optional follow-up visits over 4 months in 2 primary care practices. Eligible patients had chronic pain and a long-term prescription for opioids or buprenorphine or were referred by their primary care physician (PCP). Pharmacist recommendations were communicated to PCPs via the electronic medical record (EMR) and direct communication. Mixed-methods evaluation included baseline and follow-up surveys with patients, EMR review of opioid-related clinical encounters, and provider interviews. RESULTS: Between January and October 2018, 47 of the 182 eligible patients enrolled, with 46 completing all follow-up; 43 patients (91%) had received opioids over the past 6 months. The pharmacist recommended adding or switching to a nonopioid pain medication for 30 patients, switching to buprenorphine for pain and complex persistent opioid dependence for 20 patients, and tapering opioids for 3 patients. All physicians found the intervention acceptable but wanted more guidance on prescribing buprenorphine for pain. Most patients found the intervention helpful, but some reported a lack of physician follow-up on recommended changes. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that comanagement of patients with chronic pain is feasible and acceptable. Policy changes to increase pharmacists' authority to prescribe may increase physician willingness and confidence to carry out opioid tapers and prescribe buprenorphine for pain.

Family satisfaction in the trauma and surgical intensive care unit: another important quality measure.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of research has explored patient satisfaction as one of the healthcare quality measures. To date, scarce data are available regarding family experience in the trauma and surgical intensive care unit (TSICU). The purpose of this study was to describe and analyze the results of a family satisfaction survey in the TSICU. METHODS: Family members of patients at a level 1 trauma center were invited to participate in this study after 72 hours of intensive care unit stay. Participants completed a modified version of the Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit questionnaire, a validated survey measuring family satisfaction with care and decision-making. Data collection spanned from April 2016 to July 2017. Patient characteristics were compiled from the medical record. Quantitative analysis was performed using a 5-point Likert score, converted to a scale of 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 78.6%. Of the 103 family members for 88 patients, most were young (median age: 41 years) and female (75%). Language fluency was 44.6% English-only, 31.7% Spanish-only, and 23.8% bilingual. Mean summary family satisfaction scores (±SD) were 80.6±26.4 for satisfaction with care, 79.3±27.1 for satisfaction with decision-making, and 80.1±26.7 for total satisfaction. Respondents were less satisfied with the frequency of communication with physicians (70.7±27.4) and language translation (73.2±31.2). DISCUSSION: Overall family satisfaction with the care provided to patients in the TSICU is high, although opportunities for improvement were noted in the frequency of communication between physicians and family and language translation services. Further quality improvement projects are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management study: level V.

Frailty Syndrome and the Use of Frailty Indices as a Preoperative Risk Stratification Tool in Spine Surgery: A Review.

This comprehensive narrative literature review aims to extract studies related to frailty indices and their use in elective spine procedures, as limited studies regarding frailty exist in the spine literature. Most studies are retrospective analyses of prospectively collected databases. Evidence suggests a positive correlation between frailty level and mortality rate, postoperative complication rate, length of stay, and the possibility of discharge to a skilled nursing facility; these correlations have been illustrated across various spine procedures. The leading index is the modified frailty index, which measures 11 deficits. The development of more comprehensive frailty indices, such as the Adult Spinal Deformity Frailty Index, are promising and have high predictive value regarding postoperative complication rate in patients with spinal deformity. However, a frailty index that combines clinical, radiographic, and laboratory measures awaits development. Perhaps, the use of a frailty index in preoperative risk stratification for elective spine procedures could serve multiple purposes, including screening for high-risk patients, enhancement of operative decision making, approximation of complication rate for informed decision making, and refinement of perioperative care. Further prospective studies are warranted to determine clinically meaningful interventions in frail individuals.

Double Jeopardy in Penetrating Trauma: Get FAST, Get It Right.

BACKGROUND: In hypotensive patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating injuries, trauma surgeons often face a considerable dilemma, which cavities and when to explore. We hypothesized that the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) would be accurate enough to determine the need and sequence of cavity exploration. METHODS: We conducted a 4-year retrospective study at a level 1 trauma center with high penetrating trauma volume. Patients with potential multi-cavity thoracoabdominal injuries were selected based on the location and number of external wounds. Findings in the operation or on computed tomography were used as references to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of pericardial and abdominal FAST. RESULTS: A total of 2851 patients with penetrating injury were admitted from 2012 to 2015. Of those, 103 patients (3.6%) met our inclusion criteria (stab wounds 56.3%, gunshot wounds 43.7%). Median age: 32, male gender: 89.3%, median injury severity score: 17, in-hospital mortality rate: 11.7%. Thirty-seven patients (35.9%) required surgical exploration of more than one cavity. Although the pericardial FAST was falsely negative in only one case with large left hemothorax, all cardiac injuries were treated without delay (12/13, 92.3% sensitivity). Sensitivity and specificity of the abdominal FAST was 68.5 and 93.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In hypotensive patients following penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries, the pericardial FAST was highly sensitive and could reliably determine the need to explore the pericardium. While positive findings of abdominal FAST warrant an exploratory laparotomy, negative abdominal FAST does not exclude the abdominal cavity as a bleeding source.