Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Dialysis facility staff perceptions of racial, gender, and age disparities in access to renal transplantation

Abstract Background Racial/ethnic, gender, and age disparities in access to renal transplantation among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients have been well documented, but few studies have explored health care staff attitudes towards these inequalities. Staff perceptions can influence patient care and outcomes, and identifying staff perceptions on disparities could aid in the development of potential interventions to address these health inequities. The objective of this study was to investigate dialysis staff (n = 509), primarily social workers and nurse managers, perceptions of renal transplant disparities in the Southeastern United States. Methods This is a mixed methods study that uses both deductive and inductive qualitative analysis of a dialysis staff survey conducted in 2012 using three open-ended questions that asked staff to discuss their perceptions of factors that may contribute to transplant disparities among African American, female, and elderly patients. Results Study results suggested that the majority of staff (n = 255, 28%) perceived patients’ low socioeconomic status as the primary theme related to why renal transplant disparities exist between African Americans and non-Hispanic whites. Staff cited patient perception of old age as a primary contributor (n = 188, 23%) to the disparity between young and elderly patients. The dialysis staff responses on gender transplant disparities suggested that staff were unaware of differences due to limited experience and observation (n = 76, 14.7%) of gender disparities. Conclusions These findings suggest that dialysis facilities should educate staff on existing renal transplantation disparities, particularly gender disparities, and collaboratively work with transplant facilities to develop strategies to actively address modifiable patient barriers for transplant

Implementation of the ASCENT Trial to Improve Transplant Waitlisting Access.

INTRODUCTION: The Allocation System for changes in Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) study was a hybrid type 1 trial of a multicomponent intervention among 655 US dialysis facilities with low kidney transplant waitlisting to educate staff and patients about kidney allocation system (KAS) changes and increase access to and reduce racial disparities in waitlisting. Intervention components included a staff webinar, patient and staff educational videos, and facility-specific feedback reports. METHODS: Implementation outcomes were assessed using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework. Postimplementation surveys were administered among intervention group facilities (n = 334); interviews were conducted with facility staff (n = 6). High implementation was defined as using 3 to 4 intervention components, low implementation as using 1 to 2 components, and nonimplementation as using no components. RESULTS: A total of 331 (99%) facilities completed the survey; 57% were high implementers, 31% were low implementers, and 12% were nonimplementers. Waitlisting events were higher or similar among high versus low implementer facilities for incident and prevalent populations; for Black incident patients, the mean proportion waitlisted in low implementer facilities was 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.87) at baseline and 0.55% at 1-year (95% CI: 0.48-0.62) versus 0.83% (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) at baseline and 1.40% at 1-year (95% CI: 1.35-1.45) in high implementer facilities. Interviews revealed that the intervention helped facilities prioritize transplant education, but that intervention components were not uniformly shared. CONCLUSION: The findings provide important context to interpret ASCENT effectiveness results and identified key barriers and facilitators to consider for future modification and scale-up of multilevel, multicomponent interventions in dialysis settings

Association of sociocultural factors with initiation of the kidney transplant evaluation process.

Although research shows that minorities exhibit higher levels of medical mistrust, perceived racism, and discrimination in healthcare settings, the degree to which these underlying sociocultural factors preclude end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients from initiating kidney transplant evaluation is unknown. We telephone surveyed 528 adult ESRD patients of black or white race referred for evaluation to a Georgia transplant center (N = 3) in 2014-2016. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine associations between sociocultural factors and evaluation initiation, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics. Despite blacks (n = 407) reporting higher levels of medical mistrust (40.0% vs 26.4%, P < .01), perceived racism (55.5% vs 18.2%, P < .01), and experienced discrimination (29.0% vs 15.7%, P < .01) than whites (n = 121), blacks were only slightly less likely than whites to initiate evaluation (49.6% vs 57.9%, P = .11). However, after adjustment, medical mistrust (odds ratio [OR]: 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.91), experienced discrimination (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.95), and perceived racism (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.92) were associated with lower evaluation initiation. Results suggest that sociocultural disparities exist in early kidney transplant access and occur despite the absence of a significant racial disparity in evaluation initiation. Interventions to reduce disparities in transplantation access should target underlying sociocultural factors, not just race

Additional file 1: of Process evaluation of the RaDIANT community study: a dialysis facility-level intervention to increase referral for kidney transplantation

ESRD Network 6 RaDIANT Process Evaluation Questionnaire. 20- item questionnaire designed by the Southeastern Kidney Transplant (SEKTx) Coalition to measure fidelity, reach, sustainability, and context of the RaDIANT intervention (DOCX 25 kb