Dataset Information

Development of the Chronic Pain Coding System (CPCS) for Characterizing Patient-Clinician Discussions About Chronic Pain and Opioids.

ABSTRACT: To describe the development and initial application of the Chronic Pain Coding System.Secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial.Six primary care clinics in northern California.Forty-five primary care visits involving 33 clinicians and 45 patients on opioids for chronic noncancer pain.The authors developed a structured coding system to accurately and objectively characterize discussions about pain and opioids. Two coders applied the final system to visit transcripts. Intercoder agreement for major coding categories was moderate to substantial (kappa = 0.5-0.7). Mixed effects regression was used to test six hypotheses to assess preliminary construct validity.Greater baseline pain interference was associated with longer pain discussions (P = 0.007) and more patient requests for clinician action (P = 0.02) but not more frequent negative patient evaluations of pain (P = 0.15). Greater clinician-reported visit difficulty was associated with more frequent disagreements with clinician recommendations (P = 0.003) and longer discussions of opioid risks (P = 0.049) but not more frequent requests for clinician action (P = 0.11). Rates of agreement versus disagreement with patient requests and clinician recommendations were similar for opioid-related and non-opioid-related utterances.This coding system appears to be a reliable and valid tool for characterizing patient-clinician communication about opioids and chronic pain during clinic visits. Objective data on how patients and clinicians discuss chronic pain and opioids are necessary to identify communication patterns and strategies for improving the quality and productivity of discussions about chronic pain that may lead to more effective pain management and reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing.

SUBMITTER: Henry SG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5003763 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of the Chronic Pain Coding System (CPCS) for Characterizing Patient-Clinician Discussions About Chronic Pain and Opioids.

Henry Stephen G SG Chen Meng M Matthias Marianne S MS Bell Robert A RA Kravitz Richard L RL

Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) 20160229 10

<h4>Objective</h4>To describe the development and initial application of the Chronic Pain Coding System.<h4>Design</h4>Secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Six primary care clinics in northern California.<h4>Subjects</h4>Forty-five primary care visits involving 33 clinicians and 45 patients on opioids for chronic noncancer pain.<h4>Methods</h4>The authors developed a structured coding system to accurately and objectively characterize discussions about pain ...[more]

PMID: 26936453

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent literature describes the limits and pitfalls of using opioid pharmacotherapy for chronic pain and the importance of identifying alternatives. The objective of this study was to identify the practical issues patients and providers face when accessing alternatives to opioids, and how multiple parties view these issues.MethodsQualitative data were gathered to evaluate the outcomes of acupuncture and chiropractic (A/C) services for chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) using structured interview guides among patients with CMP (n = 90) and primary care providers (PCPs) (n = 25) purposively sampled from a managed care health care system as well as from contracted community A/C providers (n = 14). Focus groups and interviews were conducted patients with CMP with varying histories of A/C use. Plan PCPs and contracted A/C providers took part in individual interviews. All participants were asked about their experiences managing chronic pain and experience with and/or attitudes about A/C treatment. Audio recordings were transcribed and thematically coded. A summarized version of the focus group/interview guides is included in the Additional file 1.ResultsWe identified four themes around opioid use: (1) attitudes toward use of opioids to manage chronic pain; (2) the limited alternative options for chronic pain management; (3) the potential of A/C care as a tool to help manage pain; and (4) the complex system around chronic pain management. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with opioid medications for pain management, many practical barriers challenged access to other options. Most of the participants' perceived A/C care as helpful for short term pain relief. We identified that problems with timing, expectations, and plan coverage limited A/C care potential for pain relief treatment.ConclusionsThese results suggest that education about realistic expectations for chronic pain management and therapy options, as well as making A/C care more easily accessible, might lead to more satisfaction for patients and providers, and provide important input to policy makers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01345409 , date of registration 28/4/2011.

Project description:BackgroundOpioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC).MethodsThe clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment.ResultsThe key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non-pharmacological treatments and non-opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non-pharmacological treatments or non-opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence- and clinical consensus-based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation.ConclusionsOpioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance.SignificanceIn chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.

Project description:UnlabelledOpioids are regularly administered in acute and cancer pain. In chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), however, their use is controversial. Previous meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lack methodological homogeneity and comparable data. Here we analysed the maximum analgesic efficacies of opioids and non-opioids compared with placebo, and of physiotherapy and psychotherapy compared with active or waiting-list controls. We screened 3647 citations and included RCTs if treatment duration was at least 3 weeks, data were sufficient for meta-analysis, and criteria for high quality were met. Only 46 studies (10 742 patients) met the criteria. Weighted and standardized mean differences (WMD, SMD) between pain intensities were pooled to conduct separate meta-analyses for each treatment category. At the end of treatment the WMD for pain reduction (100-point scale) was 12.0 for 'strong' opioids, 10.6 for 'weak' opioids, 8.4 for non-opioids (each vs. placebo), 5.5 for psychotherapy and 4.5 for physiotherapy (each vs. active controls). Dropout rates were high in pharmacological studies. The 95% confidence intervals using the outcomes of control groups did not indicate statistical differences between efficacies of the five interventions. Because not enough eligible head-to-head trials were available, our analysis is limited to adjusted indirect comparisons. The heterogeneity of pre-post pain differences in control groups did not allow the definition of a common comparator. In conclusion, although there were statistically significant differences between maximum treatment efficacies, no intervention per se produced clinically important improvements in average pain intensity. Thus, opioids alone are inappropriate and multimodal treatment programmes may be required for CNCP.Linked articlesThis article is part of a themed section on Opioids: New Pathways to Functional Selectivity. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2015.172.issue-2.

Project description:BackgroundAdvance care planning, the process through which patient values and goals are explored and documented, is a core quality indicator in cancer care. However, patient values are predominantly elicited at the end of life; patient values earlier in serious illness are not clearly delineated. The objective of this analysis is to assess the content of patient-verified summaries of health-related values among newly diagnosed cancer outpatients in order to develop a theoretical framework to guide future values discussions and optimize person-centered oncologic care.MethodsValues summaries among patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were extracted from the medical record. Modified grounded theory analysis included interdisciplinary team coding of values summaries to identify key domains; code categorization; and identification of thematic constructs during successive consensus meetings. A final round of coding stratified themes by disease type.ResultsAnalysis of 128 patient values summary documents from 67 patients (gastrointestinal [GI] cancers, n = 49; myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS], n = 18) generated 115 codes across 12 categories. Resultant themes demonstrated patients' focus on retaining agency, personhood and interpersonal connection amidst practical and existential disruption caused by cancer. Themes coalesced into a theoretical framework with 5 sequenced constructs beginning with the cancer diagnosis, leading to 3 nesting constructs of individual identity (character), interpersonal (communication) preferences and needs, and social identity (connection), signifying sources of meaning and fulfillment. Values differences between GI cancer and MDS patients-including greater focus on normalcy, prognosis, and maintaining professional life among GI patients-reflected the distinct therapeutic options and prognoses across these disease groups.ConclusionsPatient values reflect goals of meaning-making and fulfillment through individual agency and interpersonal supports in the setting of a newly diagnosed cancer. Early, nurse-led values discussions provide important and patient-specific data that are informative and likely actionable by clinicians in the delivery of person-centered care. Values can also facilitate discussions between patients and families and clarify patient preferences.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose. OBJECTIVE:To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. PROCESS:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (?1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects. RECOMMENDATIONS:There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

Dataset Information

Development of the Chronic Pain Coding System (CPCS) for Characterizing Patient-Clinician Discussions About Chronic Pain and Opioids.

Publications

Development of the Chronic Pain Coding System (CPCS) for Characterizing Patient-Clinician Discussions About Chronic Pain and Opioids.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets