What Factors Affect Physicians’ Decisions to Prescribe Opioids in Emergency Departments?

Objective: With 42% of all emergency department visits in the United States related to pain, physicians who work in this setting are tasked with providing adequate pain management to patients with varying primary complaints and medical histories. Complicating this, the United States is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic. State governments and national organizations have developed guidelines and legislation to curtail opioid prescriptions in acute care settings, while also incentivizing providers for patient satisfaction and completeness of pain control. In order to inform future policies that focus on provider pain medication prescribing, we sought to characterize the factors physicians weigh when considering treating pain with opioids in the emergency department. Methods: We conducted and transcribed open-ended, semistructured qualitative interviews with 52 physicians at a national emergency medicine conference. Results: Participants reported a wide range of factors contributing to their opioid prescribing patterns related to three domains: 1) provider assessment of pain characteristics, 2) patient-based considerations, and 3) practice environment. Pain characteristics include the characteristics of various acute and chronic pain syndromes, including physicians’ empathy due to their own experiences with pain. Patient characteristics include “trustworthiness,” race and ethnicity, and the concern for risk of misuse. Factors related to the practice environment include hospital policy, legislation/regulation, and guidelines. Conclusion: The decision to prescribe opioids to patients in the emergency department is complex and nuanced. Physicians are interested in guidance and are concerned about the competing pressures placed on their opioid prescribing due to incentives related to patient satisfaction scores on one hand and inflexible policies that do not allow for individualized, patient-centered decisions on the other

Decision-making Among Hepatitis C Virus-negative Transplant Candidates Offered Organs from Donors with HCV Infection

Background. Historically, many organs from deceased donors with hepatitis C virus (HCV) were discarded. The advent of highly curative direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies motivated transplant centers to conduct trials of transplanting HCV-viremic organs (nucleic acid amplification test positive) into HCV-negative recipients, followed by DAA treatment. However, the factors that influence candidates’ decisions regarding acceptance of transplant with HCV-viremic organs are not well understood. Methods. To explore patient-level perceptions, influences, and experiences that inform candidate decision-making regarding transplant with organs from HCV-viremic donors, we conducted a qualitative semistructured interview study embedded within 3 clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of transplanting lungs and kidneys from HCV-viremic donors into HCV-negative recipients. The study was conducted from June 2019 to March 2021. Results. Among 44 HCV-negative patients listed for organ transplant who were approached for enrollment in the applicable clinical trial, 3 approaches to decision-making emerged: positivist, risk analyses, and instinctual response. Perceptions of risk contributed to conceptualizations of factors influencing decisions. Moreover, most participants relied on multiple decision-making approaches, either simultaneously or sequentially. Conclusions. Understanding how different decisional models influence patients’ choices regarding transplant with organs from HCV-viremic donors may promote shared decision-making among transplant patients and providers