Patient motivators to use opioids for acute pain after emergency care

IntroductionPatients are stakeholders in their own pain management. Factors motivating individuals to seek or use opioids therapeutically for treatment of acute pain are not well characterized but could be targeted to reduce incident iatrogenic opioid use disorder (OUD). Emergency departments (EDs) commonly encounter patients in acute pain for whom decisions regarding opioid therapy are required. Decision-making is necessarily challenged in episodic, unscheduled care settings given time pressure, limited information, and lack of pre-existing patient provider relationship. Patients may decline to take prescribed opioids or conversely seek opioids from other providers or non-medical sources.MethodsUsing a framework analysis approach, we qualitatively analyzed transcripts from 29 patients after discharge from an ED visit for acute pain at a large, urban, academic hospital in the midwestern United States to describe motivating factors influencing patient decisions regarding opioid use for acute pain. A semi-structured interview guide framed participant discussion in either a focus group or interview transcribed and analyzed with conventional content analysis.ResultsFour major themes emerged from our analysis including a) pain management literacy, b) control preferences, c) risk tolerance, and d) cues to action.DiscussionOur findings suggest targets for future intervention development and a framework to guide the engagement of patients as stakeholders in their own acute pain management

Datasheet1_Patient motivators to use opioids for acute pain after emergency care.docx

IntroductionPatients are stakeholders in their own pain management. Factors motivating individuals to seek or use opioids therapeutically for treatment of acute pain are not well characterized but could be targeted to reduce incident iatrogenic opioid use disorder (OUD). Emergency departments (EDs) commonly encounter patients in acute pain for whom decisions regarding opioid therapy are required. Decision-making is necessarily challenged in episodic, unscheduled care settings given time pressure, limited information, and lack of pre-existing patient provider relationship. Patients may decline to take prescribed opioids or conversely seek opioids from other providers or non-medical sources.MethodsUsing a framework analysis approach, we qualitatively analyzed transcripts from 29 patients after discharge from an ED visit for acute pain at a large, urban, academic hospital in the midwestern United States to describe motivating factors influencing patient decisions regarding opioid use for acute pain. A semi-structured interview guide framed participant discussion in either a focus group or interview transcribed and analyzed with conventional content analysis.ResultsFour major themes emerged from our analysis including a) pain management literacy, b) control preferences, c) risk tolerance, and d) cues to action.DiscussionOur findings suggest targets for future intervention development and a framework to guide the engagement of patients as stakeholders in their own acute pain management.</p

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction