Opioid Wastes Among Patients with Cancer: A Retrospective Electronic Health Record Review

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Karen Alsbrook PhD, RN, OCN
{"title":"Opioid Wastes Among Patients with Cancer: A Retrospective Electronic Health Record Review","authors":"Karen Alsbrook PhD, RN, OCN","doi":"10.1016/j.pmn.2025.01.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Problem: Opiophobia, or fear of opioids, is associated with undermanaged pain in patients with cancer. However, to our knowledge, research of documented reasons for opioid underutilization in patients with cancer is lacking. Learning the reasons patients refuse opioids as prescribed during hospital encounters may be key in mitigating opiophobia-driven poor adherence to prescribed opioids.</div><div>Purpose: To identify reasons for opioid wastes recorded by nurses in the electronic health record for one year at all locations of a comprehensive cancer center.</div><div>Methods: This descriptive study was a retrospective review of opioid wastes during 2023. Using directed content analysis, deidentified opioid wastes were categorized as intentional, accidental, or patient-related. Intentional wastes resulted from orders, policies, patient death, or pulls for wrong drug, patient, or time. Accidental wastes were unintentional (e.g., dropped on floor). Patient-related wastes were due to patient refusal or condition (e.g., nausea). Patient-related wastes were further categorized using predetermined reasons.</div><div>Results: Of 1,914 opioid wastes, most (n=1,069, 56%) were intentional and 224 (12%) accidental. 618 (32%) were patient-related; 77% (n=477) were patient refusals with 141 (23%) due to patient condition. Most patient refusals (n=477) were for no given reason (57%, n=272); requests for a different form of opioid, such as oral vs. intravenous (13.2%, n=63); or requests for a different opioid, such as tramadol vs. morphine (5.7%, n=27). Other refusals were requests for non-opioid analgesics (1.5%, n=7) or other medication (3.4%, n=16); reports of prior adverse effects (4.6%, n=22); requests for unscheduled opioid (0.4%, n=2) or another administration time (3.6%, n=17); considered opioid too strong (2.5%, n=12) or too weak (2%, n=10); family influenced (3.4%, n=16); or spat out (2.7%, n=13).</div><div>Implications: Most opioid wastes in 2023 were intentional. This finding was expected, as nurses must perform protocolized wastes (e.g., unused patient-controlled analgesia pumps) in health care settings. Few were due to accidents (e.g., loss of venous access, dropping, defective package). Most patient-related wastes were refusals for no given reason whose last known pain scores ranged from 0 to 10 with an average score of 4.5 and median score of 5.</div><div>Possibly, some refusals are influenced by opioid-related fears, including fear of side effects. Opiophobia may be amenable to intervention, which could improve pain outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19959,"journal":{"name":"Pain Management Nursing","volume":"26 2","pages":"Page e217"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Management Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1524904225000372","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Problem: Opiophobia, or fear of opioids, is associated with undermanaged pain in patients with cancer. However, to our knowledge, research of documented reasons for opioid underutilization in patients with cancer is lacking. Learning the reasons patients refuse opioids as prescribed during hospital encounters may be key in mitigating opiophobia-driven poor adherence to prescribed opioids.
Purpose: To identify reasons for opioid wastes recorded by nurses in the electronic health record for one year at all locations of a comprehensive cancer center.
Methods: This descriptive study was a retrospective review of opioid wastes during 2023. Using directed content analysis, deidentified opioid wastes were categorized as intentional, accidental, or patient-related. Intentional wastes resulted from orders, policies, patient death, or pulls for wrong drug, patient, or time. Accidental wastes were unintentional (e.g., dropped on floor). Patient-related wastes were due to patient refusal or condition (e.g., nausea). Patient-related wastes were further categorized using predetermined reasons.
Results: Of 1,914 opioid wastes, most (n=1,069, 56%) were intentional and 224 (12%) accidental. 618 (32%) were patient-related; 77% (n=477) were patient refusals with 141 (23%) due to patient condition. Most patient refusals (n=477) were for no given reason (57%, n=272); requests for a different form of opioid, such as oral vs. intravenous (13.2%, n=63); or requests for a different opioid, such as tramadol vs. morphine (5.7%, n=27). Other refusals were requests for non-opioid analgesics (1.5%, n=7) or other medication (3.4%, n=16); reports of prior adverse effects (4.6%, n=22); requests for unscheduled opioid (0.4%, n=2) or another administration time (3.6%, n=17); considered opioid too strong (2.5%, n=12) or too weak (2%, n=10); family influenced (3.4%, n=16); or spat out (2.7%, n=13).
Implications: Most opioid wastes in 2023 were intentional. This finding was expected, as nurses must perform protocolized wastes (e.g., unused patient-controlled analgesia pumps) in health care settings. Few were due to accidents (e.g., loss of venous access, dropping, defective package). Most patient-related wastes were refusals for no given reason whose last known pain scores ranged from 0 to 10 with an average score of 4.5 and median score of 5.
Possibly, some refusals are influenced by opioid-related fears, including fear of side effects. Opiophobia may be amenable to intervention, which could improve pain outcomes.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Management Nursing
Pain Management Nursing 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
187
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This peer-reviewed journal offers a unique focus on the realm of pain management as it applies to nursing. Original and review articles from experts in the field offer key insights in the areas of clinical practice, advocacy, education, administration, and research. Additional features include practice guidelines and pharmacology updates.
×
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