Educating Patients Regarding Pain Management and Safe Opioid Use After Surgery

Exploring pain management in breast cancer: key findings from the ARISE study

Aims

This ARISE study secondary analysis aims to delve into the complexities of pain management in breast cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) in Italy. It aims to identify and analyze predictive variables for pain management adequacy and establish the relationship between these variables and the effectiveness of pain control.

Materials and methods

This observational study engaged 2,104 participants from 13 Italian RT departments, focusing on 426 breast cancer patients reporting pain. Advanced statistical methods, were employed to identify significant predictive variables for pain management adequacy. Data collection involved a standardized form capturing personal, health-related information, specifics about cancer, pain intensity, and medication. The Pain Management Index (PMI) was used to evaluate pain management adequacy, where negative PMI values indicate inadequate or suboptimal pain management.

Results

The analysis showed that 61.7% of patients experienced inadequate pain management (PMI<0). Factors identified as influencing pain management adequacy included the type of pain, patient age, the objective of RT, and the geographical location of the RT center. Notably, patients undergoing curative RT exhibited a higher incidence of inadequate pain management (PMI<0) compared to those undergoing palliative RT (82.9% versus 31.4%). Geographical variations were evident, with patients treated in northern Italy showing better pain management compared to those in central-southern Italy (72.0% versus 85.6%).

Conclusion

The ARISE study underscores a significant inadequacy in pain management among breast cancer patients undergoing RT in Italy, influenced by a complex interplay of treatment-related, demographic, and regional factors. The study findings emphasize the need for enhanced, personalized pain management strategies and highlight the importance of considering a multifaceted approach.

Peri-operative pain management in adults: a multidisciplinary consensus statement from the Association of Anaesthetists and the British Pain Society

BACKGROUND

Nearly half of adult patients undergoing surgery experience moderate or severe postoperative pain. Inadequate pain management hampers postoperative recovery and function and may be associated with adverse outcomes. This multidisciplinary consensus statement provides principles that might aid postoperative recovery, and which should be applied throughout the entire peri-operative pathway by healthcare professionals, institutions and patients.

METHODS

We conducted a directed literature review followed by a four-round modified Delphi process to formulate recommendations for organisations and individuals.

RESULTS

We make recommendations for the entire peri-operative period, covering pre-admission; admission; intra-operative; post-anaesthetic care unit; ward; intensive care unit; preparation for discharge; and post-discharge phases of care. We also provide generic principles of peri-operative pain management that clinicians should consider throughout the peri-operative pathway, including: assessing pain to facilitate function; use of multimodal analgesia, including regional anaesthesia; non-pharmacological strategies; safe use of opioids; and use of protocols and training for staff in caring for patients with postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that with attention to these principles and their implementation, outcomes for adult patients having surgery might be improved.

Improving Pain Self-Efficacy in Orthopedic Surgery Patients Through Video-Based Education: A Quality Improvement Project

BACKGROUND

Effective pain management following discharge is critical for postoperative recovery, with pain self-efficacy serving as a crucial component in this process. Patient education plays a key role in enhancing self-efficacy. Among various educational modalities, a growing body of evidence supports the efficacy of video-based methods.

LOCAL PROBLEM

A lack of evidence-based pain education programs for patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery was identified at an urban academic hospital on the East Coast of the United States. This quality improvement project aimed to develop and assess a video-based pain education program, focusing on pain self-efficacy and self-reported preparedness among adult patients prescribed opioids for postsurgical pain.

METHODS

This project adopted a pretest-posttest design, utilizing the knowledge-to-action framework. Data collection spanned 3 months. Among the 69 patients screened for eligibility, 13 participants were included in the analysis. The primary intervention consisted of a 15-minute educational video covering essential pain management aspects. Following the intervention, pain self-efficacy and self-reported preparedness were evaluated using the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and a five-point Likert scale, respectively.

RESULTS

Median (IQR) scores on the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire increased significantly from 20 (16) to 32 (14) (p < .01). Mean (SD) scores for patients' self-reported preparedness also increased from 21.92 (6.53) to 31.85 (2.41) (p < .01). All participants reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the educational intervention.

CONCLUSION

Video-based education is a time-efficient and cost-effective approach. Healthcare providers can consider integrating video education to enhance pain self-efficacy in the postoperative phase, thus enhancing postsurgical pain outcomes and overall recovery experience.

Comparing modalities of opioid education in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: a randomized pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) experience significant postoperative pain and routinely require opioids, yet they often lack knowledge regarding appropriate use and handling of these medications. Evidence suggests that educational interventions in various formats may help reinforce proper usage and improve postoperative pain control. The aim of this study is to compare the institution standard of care (webinar) with two novel educational interventions-one in-person and the other a video recording-that focus specifically on the use of opioids and pain control.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized pilot study included 42 patients undergoing TKA. Patients were randomized into one of three groups: (1) webinar: 50 min virtual session standard of care at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), (2) in-person education, or (3) video education. The primary outcomes of this study were the number of opioid refill requests through postoperative day (POD) 30 and POD 60. The secondary outcomes evaluated Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores, opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (OME), surveys on medication usage and opioid knowledge, reported medication storage and disposal. We hypothesize that the novel educational interventions, presented either in-person or by video, will lead to a decrease in opioid refills within 60 days compared with current education delivered through virtual webinar.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found among groups in the number of opioid refill requests, average NRS pain score, or OME consumption at any time point. Opioid refill requests ranged from 0% to 16.7% at POD 30 (Fisher's exact test, p=0.625) and from 0% to 8.3% at POD 60 (p=1.000). The median opioid refill request was zero requests per group from POD 21 to 60 (webinar 0 (0.0, 0.0), in-person 0 (0.0, 0.0), video 0 (0.0, 0.0), Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.381). Average NRS pain scores were 5 or below for all groups on POD 1, 7 and 14. By POD 7, all groups had an average daily intake OME of 14 or below.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients in each group did well with postoperative pain management after TKA and had minimal opioid refill requests. There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes of NRS pain scores or opioid usage among groups suggesting that educational interventions were similarly effective. As a pilot trial, study demonstrated successful recruitment and retention of participants, and important feedback was elicited from patients regarding education, as well. Of note, this was a pilot study and was likely underpowered to detect a difference.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05593341.

Efficacy of Continuous Lumbar Plexus Blockade in Managing Post-Operative Pain after Hip or Femur Orthopedic Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Post-operative pain management is essential for optimizing recovery, patient comfort, and satisfaction. Peripheral nerve blockade, or lumbar plexus block (LPB), has been widely used for analgesia and regional anesthesia. This study explored the existing literature to determine the efficacy of continuous lumbar plexus blockade in managing post-operative pain following hip or femur surgery. Methods: Reviewers comprehensively searched electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed scholarly articles reporting the efficacy of lumbar plexus block in managing post-operative pain after orthopedic surgery. The potential articles were carefully selected and assessed for the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias assessment tool. Data were systematically extracted and analyzed. Results: The literature search yielded 206 articles, 20 of which were randomized controlled trials. Lumbar plexus block demonstrated superior pain relief compared to conventional pain management approaches like general anesthetics. In addition, LPB reduced patients' overall opioid consumption compared to controls, reduced adverse effects, and enhanced functional recovery, which underlines the broader positive impact of meticulous pain management. More patients could walk more than 40 feet after the second day post-operatively among the lumbar plexus group (14.7%) compared to the continuous femoral group (1.3%). Other parameters, including cortisol levels and hemodynamic stability, were evaluated, showing comparable outcomes. Conclusions: Lumbar plexus block is effective in pain management after orthopedic surgery, as shown by the lower pain scores and less opioid consumption. Additionally, patient satisfaction was relatively higher in LPB-treated patients compared to other approaches like general anesthesia.

Inpatient pain assessment and decision-making in internal medicine and general surgery residents: A qualitative analysis

Background

Understanding physician approaches to pain treatment is a critical component of opioid and analgesic stewardship. Practice patterns learned in residency often persist longitudinally into practice.

Objective

This study sought to identify salient factors and themes in how resident physicians assess and manage pain.

Methods

Video-recorded focus groups of internal medicine and general surgery residents were conducted via videoconferencing software. Data were analyzed using a ground theory approach and constant comparative method to identify themes and subthemes. Focus groups occurred in September and October 2020.

Results

10 focus groups including 35 subjects were conducted. Four general themes emerged: (1) Assessment considerations; (2) Education & Expectations; (3) Systems Factors; and (4) Management considerations. Participants indicated that while it is important to treat pain, its inherently subjective nature makes it difficult to objectively quantify it. The 0-10 numeric rating scale was problematic and infrequently utilized. Patient expectations of no pain following procedures was viewed as particularly challenging. The absence of formal best practices to guide pain assessment and management was noted in every group. Management approaches overall very highly variable, often relying on word-of-mouth relay of the preferences of specific attending physicians.

Conclusions

Pain is highly nuanced and resident physicians struggle to balance pain's subjectivity with a desire to quantify and appropriately treat it. The 0-10 numeric rating pain scale, though ubiquitous, is problematic. Priority areas of improvement identified include education for both patients and physicians, functional pain scales, and expansion of existing effective resources like the nursing pain team.

Improving Perioperative Pain Education for Patients Prescribed Opioids: An Integrative Review

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain is still inadequately managed for a significant number of patients despite the extensive use of opioids. Among several pain management strategies, patient education is a vital component of perioperative pain management. However, perioperative education practices remain inconsistent and incomplete in many hospital settings.

AIM

This integrative review aims to synthesize current evidence regarding pain education interventions across all phases of perioperative care in order to promote the safe use of opioids among patients prescribed opioids.

METHODS

The literature search identified 443 records published since 2016 through Cochrane Library, PubMed, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, and Embase. This review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A total of 12 articles met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The study settings varied from a general surgery center to multiple settings in the United States or Canada, with sample sizes ranging from 27 to 536. The main themes from the analysis include the key components of education, the optimal timing and frequency of education, education delivery methods, and a multidisciplinary team approach.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this review will help nursing professionals across surgical specialties identify effective educational approaches for patients prescribed opioids during the perioperative period. Developing education interventions based on these findings would enhance the quality and effectiveness of pain education, improve patient understanding and their preparedness to manage pain at home, and, ultimately, promote the safe use of opioids postoperatively.

Postsurgical Opioid Use Among Veterans Discharged to Skilled Care Facilities Compared to Veterans Discharged to Home After Orthopedic Surgery

OBJECTIVES

To compare opioid use patterns among Veterans who were discharged to a skilled care facility vs home after orthopedic surgery at a VA hospital.

DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Veterans who had orthopedic surgery at the Salt Lake City VA Medical Center (VAMC) between January 2018 and December 2021 and were followed by a transitional pain service. The principal outcome of interest was the time to stop opioid use after discharge from the hospital.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Veterans not already on chronic opioid therapy who had orthopedic surgery at the Salt Lake City VAMC and were followed by a transitional pain service.

METHODS

448 patients were included in the study, of which 371 (83%) were discharged to home and 77 (17%) were discharged to a skilled care facility. Median days to opioid cessation were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method with 95% CIs and compared with discharge disposition using a log-rank test. Time to opioid cessation following hospital discharge was compared to baseline characteristics using univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Patients who were discharged to a skilled care facility used opioids for twice as long as those who were discharged home [median days (interquartile range)]: 22 (19, 26) vs 11 (10, 12), P < .001, respectively. When controlling for baseline characteristics in the multivariable analysis, discharge to a skilled care facility was significantly associated with continued opioid use at all time points [hazard ratio 0.63 (95% CI 0.44, 0.89), P = .009].

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Veterans discharged to a skilled care facility after orthopedic surgery used opioids for twice as long as those who were discharged to home. As postsurgical pain management guidelines change to focus on nonopioid pain modalities and opioid reduction, skilled care providers should adapt those strategies for their facilities.

Predictors of low and high opioid tablet consumption after inguinal hernia repair: an ACHQC opioid reduction task force analysis

PURPOSE

Prescribing and consumption of opioids remain highly variable. Using a national hernia registry, we aimed to identify patient and surgery specific factors associated with low and high opioid tablet consumption after inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study evaluating patients undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair with 30-day follow-up and patient-reported opioid consumption from March 2019 to March 2021 using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative. Clinically significant patient demographics, comorbidities, operative details, quality-of-life measurements, and surgeon prescribing data were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model to identify statistically significant predictors of patients who took no opioid tablets or >10 tablets.

RESULTS

A total of 1937 patients were analyzed. Operations included 59% laparoscopic or robotic, 35% open mesh, and 6% open non-mesh repairs. Of these patients, 50% reported taking zero, 42% took 1-10, and 8% took ≥10 opioid tablets at 30-day follow-up. Patients who were older (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.34-1.79, p-value <0.001), ASA ≤ 2 (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.2-2.01, p-value <0.001), had no preoperative opioid use at baseline (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.31-4.03, p-value = 0.004), had local anesthetic with general anesthesia (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.0.5-1.85, p-value = 0.022), or prescribed <7 opioid tablets (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.96-2.62, p-value <0.001) were more likely to take no opioid tablets.

CONCLUSION

Older, healthier, opioid naïve patients with local anesthetic administered during elective inguinal hernia repair are most likely to not require opioids. Surgeon prescribing-arguably the most modifiable factor-independently correlates with both low and high opioid consumption.

Opioids and Public Health: The Prescription Opioid Ecosystem and Need for Improved Management

While U.S. opioid prescribing has decreased 38% in the past decade, opioid deaths have increased 300%. This opioid paradox is poorly recognized. Current approaches to opioid management are not working, and new approaches are needed. This article reviews the outcomes and shortcomings of recent U.S. opioid policies and strategies that focus primarily or exclusively on reducing or eliminating opioid prescribing. It introduces concepts of a prescription opioid ecosystem and opioid pool, and it discusses how the pool can be influenced by supply-side, demand-side, and opioid returns factors. It illuminates pressing policy needs for an opioid ecosystem that enables proper opioid stewardship, identifies associated responsibilities, and emphasizes the necessity of making opioid returns as easy and common as opioid prescribing, in order to minimize the size of the opioid pool available for potential diversion, misuse, overdose, and death. Approaches are applicable to opioid prescribing in general, and to opioid prescribing after surgery.

Sustained reduction of discharge opioid prescriptions in an enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery program: A multilevel generalized linear model

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs have been shown to effectively reduce opioid prescriptions at discharge after their implementation in several institutions, but little is known regarding the sustainability of this effect. Understanding opioid prescribing patterns after long-term implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery initiatives may help guide further opioid prescription reduction and improvements. Our group aimed to determine whether reductions in opioid prescriptions at discharge are sustained in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program for thoracic surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort included 2,081 patients undergoing thoracic surgery within a 4-year Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program from March 2016 through April 2020. Our Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol included a standardized multimodal analgesic regimen (ie, preoperative gabapentin, tramadol, intercostal nerve block with liposomal bupivacaine, and intraoperative acetaminophen, and ketorolac) and the rest of the interventions recommended by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery society guidelines. Our primary outcomes were the presence of opioid prescriptions at discharge (hydrocodone, hydromorphone, and oxycodone) and the total opioid amount prescribed (morphine equivalent daily dose). Multilevel generalized linear models were used to account for surgeon variabilities and types of thoracic resection.

RESULTS

Over the study period, the rate of opioid prescriptions at discharge reduced from 35% (Mar 2016) to 25% (Apr 2020), and the amount of opioid prescribed declined from 184 ± 321 morphine equivalent daily dose to 94 ± 251 morphine equivalent daily dose. In multilevel generalized linear models, there was a sustained downward trend in opioid prescriptions over the study period (β -11.8 morphine equivalent daily dose per year, P = .048), which was also directly correlated with the use of minimally invasive surgery (β -84.9 morphine equivalent daily dose for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, P < .001; β -139.2 morphine equivalent daily dose for robotic-assisted thoracic surgery, P < .001), intraoperative opioid administration (β -1.4 morphine equivalent daily dose per 1 morphine equivalent dose, P = .026), and the amount of postoperative acetaminophen (β -18.2 morphine equivalent daily dose per 1 g, P = .026). The sustained reduction of opioid prescriptions at discharge did not impact hospital readmission rates within 30 days (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.59, P = .306). Subgroup analysis showed a significant, sustained decrease in hydromorphone (β -10.9 morphine equivalent daily dose per year, P = .004), but not for hydrocodone prescriptions (β -5.7 morphine equivalent daily dose per year, P = .168) or oxycodone (β +4.78 morphine equivalent daily dose per year, P = .183).

CONCLUSION

Our Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program for thoracic surgery contributed to a sustained reduction of opioid prescriptions at discharge, which positively correlated with the duration of its implementation and the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques but was negatively impacted by the amount of intraoperative opioid administration.

How prescription drug monitoring programs influence clinical decision-making: A mixed methods systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioid prescribing, for chronic non-cancer pain, has increased substantially in the past two decades and is associated with significant harms. Various public health approaches have been adopted to address these harms including the implementation of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). This systematic review aims to identify how PDMP use influences healthcare providers' clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Six databases were searched for literature up until April 2021. Empirical studies were included, with no restrictions placed on year, location, language or study design. Thematic analysis of the identified articles was conducted and where possible, meta-analyses were conducted using a random effect model in Stata.

RESULTS

Forty-one articles related to 39 studies were included. All studies were conducted in the United States, published between 2005 and 2021 and most (n = 28) related to one state-level PDMP. PDMP utilisation influenced healthcare providers' clinical decision-making across seven broad themes: (i) the supply of controlled substances, (ii) refusal to prescribe or treat, (iii) risk mitigation strategies, (iv) communication, (v) education and counselling, (vi) referrals and care coordination and (vii) stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

PDMP use influenced healthcare providers' clinical decision-making, resulting in both intended and unintended outcomes for patients. PDMPs are a public health initiative designed to reduce harms associated with increased opioid prescribing, yet their use is associated with multiple unintended outcomes. Targeted research is needed to understand the impact of healthcare providers' clinical decision-making after PDMP utilisation, and the clinical outcomes for patients identified through these tools.

The opioid epidemic from the acute care hospital front line

Prescription opioid use has risen steeply for over two decades, driven primarily by advocacy for better management of chronic non-cancer pain, but also by poor opioid stewardship in the management of acute pain. Inappropriate prescribing, among other things, contributed to the opioid 'epidemic' and striking increases in patient harm. It has also seen a greater proportion of opioid-tolerant patients presenting to acute care hospitals. Effective and safe management of acute pain in opioid-tolerant patients can be challenging, with higher risks of opioid-induced ventilatory impairment and persistent post-discharge opioid use compared with opioid-naive patients. There are also increased risks of some less well known adverse postoperative outcomes including infection, earlier revision rates after major joint arthroplasty and spinal fusion, longer hospital stays, higher re-admission rates and increased healthcare costs. Increasingly, opioid-free/opioid-sparing techniques have been advocated as ways to reduce patient harm. However, good evidence for these remains lacking and opioids will continue to play an important role in the management of acute pain in many patients.Better opioid stewardship with consideration of preoperative opioid weaning in some patients, assessment of patient function rather than relying on pain scores alone to assess adequacy of analgesia, prescription of immediate release opioids only and evidence-based use of analgesic adjuvants are important. Post-discharge opioid prescribing should be contingent on an assessment of patient risk, with short-term only use of opioids. In partnership with pharmacists, nursing staff, other medical specialists, general practitioners and patients, anaesthetists remain ideally positioned to be involved in opioid stewardship in the acute care setting.

Effectiveness of Perioperative Opioid Educational Initiatives: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Opioids are the most commonly prescribed analgesics in the United States. Current guidelines have proposed education initiatives to reduce the risk of chronic opioid consumption, yet there is lack of efficacy data on such interventions. Our study evaluates the impact of perioperative opioid education on postoperative opioid consumption patterns including opioid cessation, number of pills consumed, and opioid prescription refills.

METHODS

The MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of perioperative educational interventions (using either paper- or video-based instruments regarding pain management and drug-induced side effects) on postoperative opioid patterns compared to standard preoperative care among patients undergoing elective surgery. Our end points were opioid consumption (number of pills used), appropriate disposal of unused opioids, opioid cessation (defined as no use of opioids), and opioid refills within 15 days, 6 weeks, and 3 months.

RESULTS

In total, 11 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria, totaling 1604 patients (804 received opioid education, while 800 received standard care). Six trials followed patients for 15 days after surgery, and 5 trials followed patients up to 3 months. After 15 days, the opioid education group consumed a lower number of opioid pills than those in the control group (weighted mean difference [WMD], -3.39 pills; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.40 to -0.37; P =.03; I2 = 69%) with no significant difference in overall opioid cessation (odds ratio [OR], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.04-1.56; P = .14; I2 = 83%). Likewise, perioperative opioid education did not have significant effects on opioid cessation at 6 weeks (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45-1.05; P = .10; I2 = 0%) and 3 months (OR, 0.59; 95% CI,0.17-2.01; P = .10; I2 = 0%) after surgery, neither reduced the need for opioid refills at 15 days (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.28-1.15; P = .12; I2 = 20%) and 6 weeks (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.59-1.98; P = .80; I2 = 37%). There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of appropriate disposal of unused opioids between both groups (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 0.66-6.00; P = .22; I2 = 71%). Subgroup analysis by type of educational intervention showed a statistical reduction of opioid consumption at 15 days when implementing multimedia/audiovisual strategies (4 trials: WMD, -4.05 pills; 95% CI, -6.59 to -1.50; P = .002; I2 = 45%), but there was no apparent decrease when using only paper-based strategies (2 trials: WMD, -2.31 pills; 95% CI, -12.21 to 7.59; P = .65; I2 = 80%).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative educational interventions reduced the number of opioid pills consumed at 15 days but did not demonstrate a significant effect on opioid cessation or opioid refills at 15 days, 6 weeks, and 3 months. Further randomized trials should focus on evidence-based educational interventions with strict homogeneity of material to draw a more definitive recommendation.

Perioperative Opioid Administration

Opioids form an important component of general anesthesia and perioperative analgesia. Discharge opioid prescriptions are identified as a contributor for persistent opioid use and diversion. In parallel, there is increased enthusiasm to advocate opioid-free strategies, which include a combination of known analgesics and adjuvants, many of which are in the form of continuous infusions. This article critically reviews perioperative opioid use, especially in view of opioid-sparing versus opioid-free strategies. The data indicate that opioid-free strategies, however noble in their cause, do not fully acknowledge the limitations and gaps within the existing evidence and clinical practice considerations. Moreover, they do not allow analgesic titration based on patient needs; are unclear about optimal components and their role in different surgical settings and perioperative phases; and do not serve to decrease the risk of persistent opioid use, thereby distracting us from optimizing pain and minimizing realistic long-term harms.

Understanding Cancer Survivors' Educational Needs About Prescription Opioid Medications: Implications for Cancer Education and Health Literacy

Cancer survivors' perceptions of prescription opioid medication (POM) and the health communications they receive about POM's safety and effectiveness are embedded within the national discourse of the opioid epidemic. Using qualitative methods, this community-based study explored the health communication and the educational needs of diverse cancer survivors who received opioid agonist treatment to manage cancer pain. Our community-based sample consisted of 25 cancer survivors, 24 healthcare providers, and six community-level stakeholders. Over half of the cancer survivors interviewed were from underrepresented minority groups (52% African American and 12% Hispanic/Latino). The data were analyzed using applied thematic analysis techniques. The over-arching themes include the need to (1) provide clear, consistent, and comprehensive education and information about POM to ensure safe use; (2) discuss the risks, benefits, and proper use of POM in the treatment of cancer-related pain; (3) communicate realistic expectations and address common misconceptions about pain; and (4) address cancer survivor beliefs and concerns surrounding fear of addiction. Our findings highlight the need for effective cancer education and communication about opioid agonist treatment and POM in plain simple language that is easy to understand, relevant, and culturally appropriate. Recommendations for cancer education and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Opioid use among veterans undergoing major joint surgery managed by a multidisciplinary transitional pain service

BACKGROUND

Chronic postsurgical pain and opioid use is a problem among patients undergoing many types of surgical procedures. A multidisciplinary approach to perioperative pain management known as a transitional pain service (TPS) may lower these risks.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Salt Lake City VA Medical Center to compare patients undergoing elective primary or revision total knee, hip, or shoulder replacement or rotator cuff repair in the year before (2017) and after (2018) implementation of a TPS. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients taking opioids 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes include new chronic opioid use (COU) after surgery as well as the proportion of previous chronic opioid users who stopped or decreased opioid use after surgery.

RESULTS

At 90 days after surgery, patients enrolled in TPS were significantly less likely to be taking opioids (13.4% TPS vs 27.3% pre-TPS; p=0.002). This relationship remained statistically significant in a multivariable logistic regression analysis, where the TPS group had 69% lower odds of postoperative COU compared with the preintervention group (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.66; p=0.03). Opioid-naive patients enrolled in TPS were less likely to have new COU after surgery (0.7% TPS vs 8.4% pre-TPS; p=0.004). Further, patients enrolled in TPS with existing COU prior to surgery were more likely to reduce or completely stop opioid use after surgery (67.5% TPS vs 45.3% pre-TPS; p=0.037) as compared with pre-TPS.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that a TPS is an effective strategy for preventing new COU and reducing overall opioid use following orthopedic joint procedures in a Veterans Affairs hospital.