“It Sometimes Doesn’t Even Work”: Patient Opioid Assessments as Clues to Therapeutic Flexibility in Primary Care

Background Physicians’ fear of difficult patient interactions is an important barrier to discontinuing long-term opioid therapy. Objective To identify patient statements about opioids that indicate potential openness to tapering opioids or trying non-opioid pain treatments Design This is an observat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2020-06, Vol.35 (6), p.1635-1640
Hauptverfasser: Henry, Stephen G., Gosdin, Melissa M., White, Anne E. C., Kravitz, Richard L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Physicians’ fear of difficult patient interactions is an important barrier to discontinuing long-term opioid therapy. Objective To identify patient statements about opioids that indicate potential openness to tapering opioids or trying non-opioid pain treatments Design This is an observational study of regularly scheduled primary care visits involving discussion of chronic pain management. A coding system to characterize patient assessments about opioids, physician responses to assessments, and patient-endorsed opioid side effects was developed and applied to transcripts of video-recorded visits. All visits were independently coded by 2 authors. Participants Eighty-six established adult patients taking opioids for chronic pain; 49 physicians in 2 academic primary care clinics Main Measures Frequency and topic of patients’ opioid assessments; proportion of opioid assessments classified as clues (assessments indicating potential willingness to consider non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses); physician responses to patient clues; frequency and type of patient-endorsed side effects Key Results Patients made a mean of 3.2 opioid assessments (median 2) per visit. The most common assessment topics were pain relief (51%), effect on function (21%), and opioid safety (14%). Forty-seven percent of opioid assessments (mean 1.5 per visit) were classified as clues. Fifty-three percent of visits included ≥ 1 clue; 21% of visits contained ≥ 3 clues. Physicians responded to patient clues with no/minimal response 43% of the time, sympathetic/empathetic statements 14% of the time, and further explored clues 43% of the time. Fifty-eight percent of patients endorsed ≥ 1 opioid-related side effect; 10% endorsed ≥ 3 side effects. The most commonly endorsed side effects were constipation (15% of patients), sedation (15%), withdrawal symptoms (13%), and nausea (12%). Conclusions Patient statements suggesting openness to non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses are common during routine primary care visits. Listening for and exploring these clues may be a patient-centered strategy for broaching difficult topics with patients on long-term opioid therapy.
ISSN:0884-8734
1525-1497
DOI:10.1007/s11606-019-05421-9