Misprescribing controlled substances: An evaluation of a professional development program

Increasing Provider Self-Efficacy to Manage Chronic Cancer Pain

BACKGROUND

Aims: Pain is a significant problem for those with a cancer diagnosis. Oncology providers often use opioid therapy to manage cancer-related pain. Accessing opioid therapy has grown increasingly difficult because of the opioid epidemic. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) released guidelines to optimize pain management for patients with oncologic diagnoses. The goal of this quality improvement project was to create an educational session and evaluate self-efficacy in providers who manage chronic cancer pain.

DESIGN

The Plan-Do-Study-Act was used as the framework for this quasi-experimental study with a pre/post education survey design.

SETTINGS

Level 1 Trauma Center in Upstate, NY.

PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS

Family Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants in a local cancer institute.

METHODS

There was a voice over PowerPoint educational intervention used to discuss key points of the guidelines, which included addressing aberrant behaviors, safe opioid prescribing, and interdisciplinary pain management. A convenience sample size of 18 advanced practice providers (APP) were recruited from a level 1-trauma center in Upstate, New York. Participants reviewed the educational intervention and completed a series of surveys to assess tool satisfaction and self-efficacy scores.

RESULTS

Data analysis revealed a significant increase in the mean self-efficacy scores on the post-education Jackson Opioid Therapy Self-Efficacy tool. The educational intervention was associated with improved perceptions of self-efficacy when managing chronic cancer pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the study's results, the guidelines released by ASCO should be reviewed and used to optimize pain management and self-efficacy in providers who work with oncologic patients. Furthermore, future research is recommended to evaluate the effect of evidence-based guidelines on patient outcomes and morbidity.

Identifying Training Needs and Active Information Opportunities in Primary Care Through the Analysis of Drug Information Requests

INTRODUCTION

Drug information (DI) services should work toward efficiency by identifying knowledge gaps and actively creating resources to address those needs. The aim was to identify training needs and active information opportunities in primary care by analyzing DI requests and to calculate labor cost associated with DI requests addressable with training or active information.

METHODS

DI requests received in 2016 and 2017 by ambulatory care pharmacists were independently classified by 2 authors into: training (i.e., delivery of content meant to be retained as knowledge and used when needed); active information (i.e., resources created preemptively and consulted when needed); or passive information (i.e., not addressable with training or active information). Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen's Kappa. Median time spent by category and across practice settings/professional types was compared using bivariate analysis. Thematic analysis categorized specific training and active DI requests and labor costs were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 2,041 DI requests, 330 (16.2%) were classified as training, 454 (22.2%) active information, and 1257 (61.6%) passive information (kappa = 0.769). Median (IQR) time to resolve requests was 5 (2-10) mins for training, 5 (3-11) active information, and 10 (4-15) passive information. Pharmacists spent 132.1 hrs = $8,956.98 answering questions addressable with training or active information. Areas warranting training or active information included: controlled substances, immunizations, patient assistance programs, policy/regulations, medication preparation/administration, storage/stability, disposal, availability/ordering medications, and patient-related resources.

CONCLUSION

Several opportunities for training and active information were identified. Despite the single-institution nature, the method described can serve as an example for other institutions.

Protecting Pain Patients. The Evaluation of a Chronic Pain Educational Intervention

Introduction

Advocacy and commercially funded education successfully reduced barriers to the provision of long-term opioid analgesia. The subsequent escalation of opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain has seen increasing harms without improved pain outcomes.

Methods

This was a one-group pretest-posttest design study. A multidisciplinary team developed a chronic pain educational package for general practitioner trainees emphasizing limitations, risk-mitigation, and deprescribing of opioids with transition to active self-care. This educational intervention incorporated prereadings, a resource kit, and a 90-minute interactional video case-based workshop incorporated into an education day. Evaluation was via pre- and postintervention (two months) questionnaires. Differences in management of two clinical vignettes were tested using McNemar's test.

Results

Of 58 eligible trainees, 47 (response rate = 81.0%) completed both questionnaires (36 of whom attended the workshop). In a primary analysis including these 47 trainees, therapeutic intentions of tapering opioid maintenance for pain (in a paper-based clinical vignette) increased from 37 (80.4%) pre-intervention to 44 (95.7%) postintervention (P = 0.039). In a sensitivity analysis including only trainees attending the workshop, 80.0% pre-intervention and 97.1% postintervention tapered opioids (P = 0.070). Anticipated initiation of any opioids for a chronic osteoarthritic knee pain clinical vignette reduced from 35 (74.5%) to 24 (51.1%; P = 0.012) in the primary analysis and from 80.0% to 41.7% in the sensitivity analysis (P = 0.001).

Conclusions

Necessary improvements in pain management and opioid harm avoidance are predicated on primary care education being of demonstrable efficacy. This brief educational intervention improved hypothetical management approaches two months subsequently. Further research measuring objective changes in physician behavior, especially opioid prescribing, is indicated.