Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain in Primary Care: A Qualitative Metasynthesis (original) (raw)
Related papers
An exploration of opioid medication management for non-malignant pain in primary care
British Journal of Pain, 2015
The present study aimed to explore how prescription of opioid medication for chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) is managed in primary care. We used audit as a research tool, and one general practitioner (GP) practice in West London acted as an exemplar. Of the practice population with CNMP, 1% had repeat prescription of at least 12 months duration for opioid analgesics at the time of data collection. These 1% are on highly controlled opioids. Our study showed the following: (1) long-term opioid prescription appears to follow a fluctuating course as opposed to staying the same; (2) we found that medication reviews were done in most cases (85.7%), but the quality of the process is difficult to assess and ascertain; and (3) we identified two incidences where opioid contract was implemented. In both cases, contracts were used as a last chance warning for patients who were already problematic, suggesting that opioid contracts served as a disciplinary tool rather than a preventative measure. Our findings highlight a need for a more structured and specific review of analgesic medication, and a need for a simple and effective way to identify patients at high risk of developing problematic use, to ensure better monitoring and early presentations.
Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain in Primary Care: Risk Assessment
The use of opioids for patients with chronic noncancer pain has increased dramatically , and with increasing use there is increasing concern about the potential for abuse and addiction during long-term treatment. Clinicians should avoid viewing formal or subjective risk assessment as a means of classifying patients into 2 distinct categories: compliant patients and substance abusers. The provider who perceives a patient as compliant may have a complacent attitude toward aberrant drug-related behavior, presuming that these signs reflect inadequately controlled pain, to be addressed by dose escalation. The provider who perceives a patient as a substance abuser may refuse to provide treatment for pain, leaving the patient to seek either illicit drugs or prescribed treatment from another provider. In fact, in seemingly compliant patients, any noncompliant use of opioids presents a safety risk regardless of the explanations offered. Even in known or suspected drug abusers, chronic pain warrants the use of adequate pharmacotherapy, although treatment in such cases may exclude drugs with high abuse potential. Thus, all aberrant drug-related behavior should be addressed within a treatment plan that combines adequate pain care with suitable interventions for the aberrant behavior, following current best practice strategies. This approach is consistent with the approach taken with other health conditions, such as diabetes or hypertension, for which it is understood that noncompli-ance with therapy presents a risk of harm.
The Journal of Pain, 2009
To examine the use of extended-release (ER) opioids relative to immediate-release (IR) opioids in chronic opioid prescription episodes, pharmacy claim data from a national health plan database were analyzed. Enrollees having at least 1 pharmacy claim for an opioid formulation between June 2003 and May 2006, and at least 1 year of continuous enrollment after their first observed pharmacy claim were included. Opioid prescription episodes were created by combining contiguous days of therapy, allowing for a maximum of 7 days between refills ($8 d = new episode). Outcomes are reported in the form of probabilities and odds ratios (ORs). A total of 3,993,011 opioid prescription episodes were derived from 1,967,898 enrollees. Overall, prescription episodes involving IR preparations (97.7%) were more prevalent than episodes using ER preparations (2.3%). The odds of an ER preparation being prescribed chronically ($60 d) were approximately 11 times that of an IR preparation (OR = 10.7); however, the majority of chronic prescription episodes used IR formulations (84.8%). When stratified by prescriber type (specialist vs nonspecialists), the probability of a specialist prescribing ER opioids in these chronic prescription episodes was 19.1% versus 13.7% for nonspecialists. Specialists were about 50% more likely to prescribe ER opioids relative to nonspecialists (OR = 1.49).
Understanding long-term opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain in primary care: a qualitative study
BMC family practice, 2015
The place of opioids in the management of chronic, non-cancer pain is limited. Even so their use is escalating, leading to concerns that patients are prescribed strong opioids inappropriately and alternatives to medication are under-used. We aimed to understand the processes which bring about and perpetuate long-term prescribing of opioids for chronic, non-cancer pain. We held semi-structured interviews with patients and focus groups with general practitioners (GPs). Participants included 23 patients currently prescribed long-term opioids and 15 GPs from Leeds and Bradford, United Kingdom (UK). We used a grounded approach to the analysis of transcripts. Patients are driven by the needs for pain relief, explanation, and improvement or maintenance of quality of life. GPs' responses are shaped by how UK general practice is organised, available therapeutic choices and their expertise in managing chronic pain, especially when facing diagnostic uncertainty or when their own approach i...
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2002
This study evaluated the use of and need for opioids in patients attending the Multidisciplinary Pain Centre at the Royal Brisbane Hospital (RBH). All consecutive in-patient admissions in 1998 were reviewed. A 10-point scoring system based on the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder was devised to facilitate comparison of analgesic prescribing on admission and at the time of discharge. A conversion table was used to standardize opioid analgesic doses to an oral morphine equivalent. Of the 370 patients reviewed, 233 (81%) were by their general practitioners. Records of 288 (78%) were available for full review and 270 (94%) of these had noncancer pain. On admission, 239 (83%) were taking an opioid analgesic, with 135 (47%) taking strong opioids (e.g. morphine, oxycodone, methadone). There was a significant decrease in the mean total daily oral morphine equivalent prescribed on discharge 36.9 mg (95% CI: 33.4, 40.4) compared with that on admission 88.7 mg (95% CI: 77.6, 99.8) (P < 0.001). There was a significant decrease (P < 0.05) in the proportion of patients taking a primary opioid on discharge 153 (58%) compared with admission 239 (83%), although the proportion of patients taking a strong opioid on discharge 150 (52%) compared with admission 135 (47%) was not significantly different (P > 0.05). The proportion of patients taking a laxative showed a significant increase on discharge 110 (73%) compared with admission 38 (28%) (P < 0.05). Our analgesic prescribing scoring system and opioid conversion table have the potential to be developed further as tools for assessing opioid analgesic prescribing. The significant decrease in total daily oral morphine equivalents signifies the value of prescribing in accordance with the WHO analgesic ladder, and the necessity of general practitioner education. The management of chronic pain is complex, and it requires interventions additional to pharmacological therapy. Evaluation by a multidisciplinary team, coupled with experience in and an understanding of analgesic prescribing and rehabilitation provides an effective basis for improving the management of patients with chronic pain.
European Pain Federation position paper on appropriate opioid use in chronic pain management
European Journal of Pain, 2016
Poorly controlled pain is a global public health issue. The personal, familial and societal costs are immeasurable. Only a minority of European patients have access to a comprehensive specialist pain clinic. More commonly the responsibility for chronic pain management and initiating opioid therapy rests with the primary care physician and other non-specialist opioid prescribers. There is much confusing and conflicting information available to non-specialist prescribers regarding opioid therapy and a great deal of unjustified fear is generated. Opioid therapy should only be initiated by competent clinicians as part of a multi-faceted treatment programme in circumstances where more simple measures have failed. Throughout, all patients must be kept under close clinical surveillance. As with any other medical therapy, if the treatment fails to yield the desired results and/or the patient is additionally burdened by an unacceptable level of adverse effects, the overall management strategy must be reviewed and revised. No responsible clinician will wish to pursue a failed treatment strategy or persist with an ineffective and burdensome treatment. In a considered attempt to empower and inform non-specialist opioid prescribers, EFIC convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of basic science and relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate opioid use in chronic pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and harnessed the experience of many years of clinical practice to produce these series of recommendations. Its success will be judged on the extent to which it contributes to an improved pain management experience for chronic pain patients across Europe. Significance: This position paper provides expert recommendations for primary care physicians and other non-specialist healthcare professionals in Europe, particularly those who do not have ready access
Pain, 2019
Recommendations regarding the use of Opioid Analgesics in patients with chronic Non-Cancer Pain PURPOSE The Faculty of Pain Medicine (FPM) recognises the lack of definitive evidence supporting the long-term effectiveness of opioid analgesics in people experiencing chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and the substantial evidence of potential harm. This document outlines the current position of the FPM regarding opioid use in CNCP. It is anticipated that this position will evolve as the evidence base develops. CURRENT EVIDENCE The efficacy of opioid therapy is supported by strong evidence from randomised controlled trials in acute pain [1] and from systematic reviews in cancer pain [2,3], palliative care [4] and opioid dependency/addiction [5]. In CNCP systematic reviews report modest short term analgesic benefit [6,7]. However the duration of the RCTs reviewed (up to 4 months) was too short to adequately inform the long term role of opioid treatment in CNCP.
Opioids, Chronic Pain, and Addiction in Primary Care
The Journal of Pain, 2010
Research has largely ignored the systematic examination of physicians' attitudes towards providing care for patients with chronic non-cancer pain. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators to opioid treatment of chronic non-cancer pain patients by officebased medical providers. We used a qualitative study design using individual and group interviews. Participants were twenty-three office-based physicians in New England. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and systematically coded by a multidisciplinary team using the constant comparative method. Physician barriers included lack of expertise in the treatment of chronic pain and co-existing disorders, including addiction; lack of interest in pain management; patients' aberrant behaviors; and physicians' attitudes toward prescribing opioid analgesics. Physician facilitators included promoting continuity of patient care and the use of opioid agreements. Physicians' perceptions of patient-related barriers included lack of physician responsiveness to patients' pain reports, negative attitudes toward opioid analgesics, concerns about cost, and patients' low motivation for pain treatment. Perceived logistical barriers included lack of appropriate pain management and addiction referral options, limited information regarding diagnostic workup, limited insurance coverage for pain management services, limited ancillary support for physicians, and insufficient time. Addressing these barriers to pain treatment will be crucial to improving pain management service delivery.