Patient experience of discharge opioid analgesia and care provision following spine surgery: A mixed methods study.

IF 1.3 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Megan L Allen, Adam Pastor, Kate Leslie, Brennan Fitzpatrick, Malcolm Hogg, Hui Lau, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis
{"title":"Patient experience of discharge opioid analgesia and care provision following spine surgery: A mixed methods study.","authors":"Megan L Allen, Adam Pastor, Kate Leslie, Brennan Fitzpatrick, Malcolm Hogg, Hui Lau, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis","doi":"10.1177/20494637251322168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perioperative opioid stewardship programs are increasingly being introduced to guide responsible use around the time of surgery to reduce opioid-related harm to patients. However, patient experiences of perioperative opioid stewardship programs are underexplored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We designed a mixed methods study to explore patients' experiences of perioperative opioid stewardship in the post-operative period following spine surgery. We performed evaluative action research, combining quality improvement and ethnographic methodologies. Our quantitative methods were retrospective medical record review and targeted survey research. Our qualitative methods were online focus groups. The quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square, and rank sum testing. The focus group data underwent inductive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our spine surgery cohort for the four-month study period included 101 patients. The median total discharge opioid dispensed was 75 mg [interquartile range 75-150 mg], with 30% of patients prescribed modified release opioids on discharge. A subset of patients (<i>N</i> = 14) participated in the online focus groups. The key themes that emerged from these sessions were (1) Supportive care delivery and rescue mechanisms were universally important to patient participants, providing great reassurance during their recovery; (2) Participants commonly believed opioid analgesia had an important role in recovery following spine surgery. Some patients were keen to dispose of surplus opioids whilst others intended to retain them; (3) Opioid analgesia access was variable, but established community prescriber relationships were important for post-discharge opioid re-prescription, and (4) The key future improvement suggestions included routine post-discharge contact and enhanced communication options back to the hospital if needed.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Our mixed methods approach provided rich insights into the pain and opioid analgesia experiences of patients following spine surgery. These insights are useful when seeking to optimise perioperative opioid stewardship programs including better meeting the needs of patient consumers. Limitations included potential response and selection bias for the online focus groups towards younger, higher socioeconomic status patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":46585,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"20494637251322168"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11840826/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20494637251322168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Perioperative opioid stewardship programs are increasingly being introduced to guide responsible use around the time of surgery to reduce opioid-related harm to patients. However, patient experiences of perioperative opioid stewardship programs are underexplored.

Methods: We designed a mixed methods study to explore patients' experiences of perioperative opioid stewardship in the post-operative period following spine surgery. We performed evaluative action research, combining quality improvement and ethnographic methodologies. Our quantitative methods were retrospective medical record review and targeted survey research. Our qualitative methods were online focus groups. The quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square, and rank sum testing. The focus group data underwent inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Our spine surgery cohort for the four-month study period included 101 patients. The median total discharge opioid dispensed was 75 mg [interquartile range 75-150 mg], with 30% of patients prescribed modified release opioids on discharge. A subset of patients (N = 14) participated in the online focus groups. The key themes that emerged from these sessions were (1) Supportive care delivery and rescue mechanisms were universally important to patient participants, providing great reassurance during their recovery; (2) Participants commonly believed opioid analgesia had an important role in recovery following spine surgery. Some patients were keen to dispose of surplus opioids whilst others intended to retain them; (3) Opioid analgesia access was variable, but established community prescriber relationships were important for post-discharge opioid re-prescription, and (4) The key future improvement suggestions included routine post-discharge contact and enhanced communication options back to the hospital if needed.

Discussion and conclusions: Our mixed methods approach provided rich insights into the pain and opioid analgesia experiences of patients following spine surgery. These insights are useful when seeking to optimise perioperative opioid stewardship programs including better meeting the needs of patient consumers. Limitations included potential response and selection bias for the online focus groups towards younger, higher socioeconomic status patients.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of Pain
British Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: British Journal of Pain is a peer-reviewed quarterly British journal with an international multidisciplinary Editorial Board. The journal publishes original research and reviews on all major aspects of pain and pain management. Reviews reflect the body of evidence of the topic and are suitable for a multidisciplinary readership. Where empirical evidence is lacking, the reviews reflect the generally held opinions of experts in the field. The Journal has broadened its scope and has become a forum for publishing primary research together with brief reports related to pain and pain interventions. Submissions from all over the world have been published and are welcome. Official journal of the British Pain Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信