Melissa B Weimer, Michele J Buonora, Alexandra M Hajduk, Adam L Ackerman, Krishna R Daggula, William C Becker, Sarwat I Chaudhry, David A Fiellin
{"title":"Intervention for hospitalized people with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm: A pilot randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Melissa B Weimer, Michele J Buonora, Alexandra M Hajduk, Adam L Ackerman, Krishna R Daggula, William C Becker, Sarwat I Chaudhry, David A Fiellin","doi":"10.1002/jhm.70066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The management of analgesia in people hospitalized with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm is challenging. While opioid stewardship programs could provide guidance, their feasibility in this population has not been examined.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop a case identification tool and evaluate the feasibility of an electronic medical record (EMR)-delivered opioid stewardship and pain intervention among hospitalized people with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After developing and evaluating the operating characteristics of a case identification tool to identify people with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm, hospitalized adults with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm were randomized to an EMR-delivered opioid stewardship and pain intervention versus usual care. Primary outcomes were feasibility-based. Exploratory outcomes were pain-related clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The case identification tool had a sensitivity of 88.9% and a specificity of 95.7%. The trial recruited 52/97 (54%) of potential participants who completed 52/52 (100%) potential assessments and of whom 45/52 (87%) were retained in the study at 4 weeks, demonstrating feasibility. On average, both treatment arms received 56% of the recommended guideline-concordant care and there was no significant difference in opioid and pain-related care in the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is both feasible to develop an EMR-based tool to prospectively identify hospitalized people with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm as well as recruit these individuals to an EMR-delivered opioid stewardship and pain intervention. Additional strategies to support the provision of guideline-concordant care may be warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":94084,"journal":{"name":"Journal of hospital medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.70066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The management of analgesia in people hospitalized with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm is challenging. While opioid stewardship programs could provide guidance, their feasibility in this population has not been examined.
Objectives: To develop a case identification tool and evaluate the feasibility of an electronic medical record (EMR)-delivered opioid stewardship and pain intervention among hospitalized people with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm.
Methods: After developing and evaluating the operating characteristics of a case identification tool to identify people with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm, hospitalized adults with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm were randomized to an EMR-delivered opioid stewardship and pain intervention versus usual care. Primary outcomes were feasibility-based. Exploratory outcomes were pain-related clinical outcomes.
Results: The case identification tool had a sensitivity of 88.9% and a specificity of 95.7%. The trial recruited 52/97 (54%) of potential participants who completed 52/52 (100%) potential assessments and of whom 45/52 (87%) were retained in the study at 4 weeks, demonstrating feasibility. On average, both treatment arms received 56% of the recommended guideline-concordant care and there was no significant difference in opioid and pain-related care in the two groups.
Conclusion: It is both feasible to develop an EMR-based tool to prospectively identify hospitalized people with chronic pain and elevated risk for opioid-related harm as well as recruit these individuals to an EMR-delivered opioid stewardship and pain intervention. Additional strategies to support the provision of guideline-concordant care may be warranted.