Medical Record Documentation About Opioid Tapering: Examining Benefit-to-Harm Framework and Patient Engagement. Issue 10 (6th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Buonora, Michele; Perez, Hector R; Stumph, Jordan; Allen, Robert; Nahvi, Shadi; Cunningham, Chinazo O; Merlin, Jessica S; Starrels, Joanna L
• Is Part Of: Pain medicine. Volume 21:Issue 10(2020)
• Page Start: 2574
• Page End: 2582
• Publication Date: 2020-03-06
• Subjects: Chronic Pain -- Opioid Taper -- Primary Care -- Pain Management -- Clinician Documentation; Pain -- Periodicals; Pain -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Analgesics -- Periodicals; Pain -- Periodicals; Pain Management -- Periodicals; Douleur -- Périodiques; Douleur -- Traitement -- Périodiques; Analgésiques -- Périodiques; Analgésique; Soulagement de la douleur; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 616.047205
• DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnz361
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-2375

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Guidelines recommend that clinicians make decisions about opioid tapering for patients with chronic pain using a benefit-to-harm framework and engaging patients. Studies have not examined clinician documentation about opioid tapering using this framework. Design and Setting: Thematic and content analysis of clinician documentation about opioid tapering in patients' medical records in a large academic health system. Methods: Medical records were reviewed for patients aged 18 or older, without cancer, who were prescribed stable doses of long-term opioid therapy between 10/2015 and 10/2016 then experienced an opioid taper (dose reduction ≥30%) between 10/2016 and 10/2017. Inductive thematic analysis of clinician documentation within six months of taper initiation was conducted to understand rationale for taper, and deductive content analysis was conducted to determine the frequencies of a priori elements of a benefit-to-harm framework. Results: Thematic analysis of 39 patients' records revealed 1) documented rationale for tapering prominently cited potential harms of continuing opioids, rather than observed harms or lack of benefits; 2) patient engagement was variable and disagreement with tapering was prominent. Content analysis found no patients' records with explicit mention of benefit-to-harm assessments. Benefits of continuing opioids were mentioned in 56% of patients' records, observed harms were mentioned in 28%, and potential harms were mentioned in 90%. Conclusions: In this study, documentation of opioid tapering focused on potential harms of continuing opioids, indicated variable patient engagement, and lacked a complete benefit-to-harm framework. Future initiatives should develop standardized ways of incorporating a benefit-to-harm framework and patient engagement into clinician decisions and documentation about opioid tapering.