FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Identifying provider, patient and practice factors that shape long-term opioid prescribing for cancer pain: a qualitative study of American and Australian providers

Por: Fereydooni · S. · Lorenz · K. · Azarfar · A. · Luckett · T. · Phillips · J. L. · Becker · W. · Giannitrapani · K.
Introduction

Prescribing long-term opioid therapy is a nuanced clinical decision requiring careful consideration of risks versus benefits. Our goal is to understand patient, provider and context factors that impact the decision to prescribe opioids in patients with cancer.

Methods

We conducted a secondary analysis of the raw semistructured interview data gathered from 42 prescribers who participated in one of two aligned concurrent qualitative studies in the USA and Australia. We conducted a two-part analysis of the interview: first identifying all factors influencing long-term prescribing and second open coding-related content for themes.

Results

Factors that influence long-term opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain clustered under three key domains (patient-related, provider-related and practice-related factors) each with several themes. Domain 1: Patient factors related to provider–patient continuity, patient personality, the patient’s social context and patient characteristics including racial/ethnic identity, housing and socioeconomic status. Domain 2: Provider-related factors centred around provider ‘personal experience and expertise’, training and time availability. Domain 3: Practice-related factors included healthcare interventions to promote safer opioid practices and accessibility of quality alternative pain therapies.

Conclusion

Despite the differences in the contexts of the two countries, providers consider similar patient, provider and practice-related factors when long-term prescribing opioids for patients with cancer. Some of these factors may be categorised as cognitive biases that may intersect in an already disadvantaged patient and exacerbate disparities in the treatment of their pain. A more systematic understanding of these factors and how they impact the quality of care can inform appropriate interventions.

Qualitative interview study of strategies to support healthcare personnel mental health through an occupational health lens

Por: Brown-Johnson · C. · DeShields · C. · McCaa · M. · Connell · N. · Giannitrapani · S. N. · Thanassi · W. · Yano · E. M. · Singer · S. J. · Lorenz · K. A. · Giannitrapani · K.
Background

Employee Occupational Health (‘occupational health’) clinicians have expansive perspectives of the experience of healthcare personnel. Integrating mental health into the purview of occupational health is a newer approach that could combat historical limitations of healthcare personnel mental health programmes, which have been isolated and underused.

Objective

We aimed to document innovation and opportunities for supporting healthcare personnel mental health through occupational health clinicians. This work was part of a national qualitative needs assessment of employee occupational health clinicians during COVID-19 who were very much at the centre of organisational responses.

Design

This qualitative needs assessment included key informant interviews obtained using snowball sampling methods.

Participants

We interviewed 43 US Veterans Health Administration occupational health clinicians from 29 facilities.

Approach

This analysis focused on personnel mental health needs and opportunities, using consensus coding of interview transcripts and modified member checking.

Key results

Three major opportunities to support mental health through occupational health involved: (1) expanded mental health needs of healthcare personnel, including opportunities to support work-related concerns (eg, traumatic deployments), home-based concerns and bereavement (eg, working with chaplains); (2) leveraging expanded roles and protocols to address healthcare personnel mental health concerns, including opportunities in expanding occupational health roles, cross-disciplinary partnerships (eg, with employee assistance programmes (EAP)) and process/protocol (eg, acute suicidal ideation pathways) and (3) need for supporting occupational health clinicians’ own mental health, including opportunities to address overwork/burn-out with adequate staffing/resources.

Conclusions

Occupational health can enact strategies to support personnel mental health: to structurally sustain attention, use social cognition tools (eg, suicidality protocols or expanded job descriptions); to leverage distributed attention, enhance interdisciplinary collaboration (eg, chaplains for bereavement support or EAP) and to equip systems with resources and allow for flexibility during crises, including increased staffing.

Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis

Por: Giannitrapani · K. F. · Holliday · J. R. · McCaa · M. D. · Stockdale · S. · Bergman · A. A. · Katz · M. L. · Zulman · D. M. · Rubenstein · L. V. · Chang · E. T.
Objective

Chronic pain disproportionately affects medically and psychosocially complex patients, many of whom are at high risk of hospitalisation. Pain prevalence among high-risk patients, however, is unknown, and pain is seldom a focus for improving high-risk patient outcomes. Our objective is to (1) evaluate pain frequency in a high-risk patient population and (2) identify intensive management (IM) programme features that patients and providers perceive as important for promoting patient-centred pain care within primary care (PC)-based IM.

Design

Secondary observational analysis of quantitative and qualitative evaluation data from a multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.

Setting

Five integrated local Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare systems within distinct VA administrative regions.

Participants

Staff and high-risk PC patients in the VA.

Intervention

A multisite randomised PC-based IM programme for high-risk patients.

Outcome measures

(a) Pain prevalence based on VA electronic administrative data and (b) transcripts of interviews with IM staff and patients that mentioned pain.

Results

Most (70%, 2593/3723) high-risk patients had at least moderate pain. Over one-third (38%, 40/104) of the interviewees mentioned pain or pain care. There were 89 pain-related comments addressing IM impacts on pain care within the 40 interview transcripts. Patient-identified themes were that IM improved communication and responsiveness to pain. PC provider-identified themes were that IM improved workload and access to expertise. IM team member-identified themes were that IM improved pain care coordination, facilitated non-opioid pain management options and mitigated provider compassion fatigue. No negative IM impacts on pain care were mentioned.

Conclusions

Pain is common among high-risk patients. Future IM evaluations should consider including a focus on pain and pain care, with attention to impacts on patients, PC providers and IM teams.

Interdisciplinary interventions that improve patient-reported outcomes in perioperative cancer care: A systematic review of randomized control trials

by Bhagvat J. Maheta, Nainwant K. Singh, Karl A. Lorenz, Sarina Fereydooni, Sydney M. Dy, Hong-nei Wong, Jonathan Bergman, John T. Leppert, Karleen F. Giannitrapani

Introduction

Interdisciplinary teams are often leveraged to improve quality of cancer care in the perioperative period. We aimed to identify the team structures and processes in interdisciplinary interventions that improve perioperative patient-reported outcomes for patients with cancer.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized control trials published at any time and screened 7,195 articles. To be included in our review, studies needed to report patient-reported outcomes, have interventions that occur in the perioperative period, include surgical cancer treatment, and include at least one non physician intervention clinical team member: advanced practice providers, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, and registered nurses. We narratively synthesized intervention components, specifically roles assumed by intervention clinical team members and interdisciplinary team processes, to compare interventions that improved patient-reported outcomes, based on minimal clinically important difference and statistical significance.

Results

We included 34 studies with a total of 4,722 participants, of which 31 reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. The common clinical team member roles featured patient education regarding diagnosis, treatment, coping, and pain/symptom management as well as postoperative follow up regarding problems after surgery, resource dissemination, and care planning. Other intervention components included six or more months of continuous clinical team member contact with the patient and involvement of the patient’s caregiver.

Conclusions

Future interventions might prioritize supporting clinical team members roles to include patient education, caregiver engagement, and clinical follow-up.

❌