Evaluation of a primary care-based opioid and pain review service: a mixed-methods evaluation in two GP practices in England.

The British Journal of General Practice Pub Date : 2020-01-30 Print Date: 2020-02-01 DOI:10.3399/bjgp19X707237
Lauren J Scott, Joanna M Kesten, Kevin Bache, Matthew Hickman, Rona Campbell, Anthony E Pickering, Sabi Redwood, Kyla Thomas
{"title":"Evaluation of a primary care-based opioid and pain review service: a mixed-methods evaluation in two GP practices in England.","authors":"Lauren J Scott, Joanna M Kesten, Kevin Bache, Matthew Hickman, Rona Campbell, Anthony E Pickering, Sabi Redwood, Kyla Thomas","doi":"10.3399/bjgp19X707237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Opioid prescribing to treat chronic non-cancer pain has rapidly increased, despite a lack of evidence for long-term safety and effectiveness. A pain review service was developed to work with patients taking opioids long-term to explore opioid use, encourage non-drug-based alternatives, and, where appropriate, support dose reduction.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the service and its potential impact on opioid use, health and wellbeing outcomes, and quality of life (QoL).</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Mixed-methods evaluation of a one-to-one service based in two GP practices in South Gloucestershire, England, which took place from September 2016 to December 2017.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Quantitative data were collected on baseline demographics; data on opioid use, misuse, and dose, health, wellbeing, QoL, and pain and interference with life measures were collected at baseline and follow-up. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews (<i>n</i> = 18 service users, <i>n</i> = 7 service providers) explored experiences of the service including perceived impacts and benefits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 59 patients who were invited, 34 (57.6%) enrolled in the service. The median prescribed opioid dose reduced from 90 mg (average daily morphine equivalent; interquartile range [IQR] 60 to 240) at baseline to 72 mg (IQR 30 to 160) at follow-up (<i>P</i><0.001); three service users stopped using opioids altogether. On average, service users showed improvement on most health, wellbeing, and QoL outcomes. Perceived benefits were related to wellbeing, for example, improved confidence and self-esteem, use of pain management strategies, changes in medication use, and reductions in dose.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The service was well received, and health and wellbeing outcomes suggest a potential benefit. Following further service development, a randomised controlled trial to test this type of care pathway is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":22333,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of General Practice","volume":"37 1","pages":"e111-e119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6890470/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X707237","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Opioid prescribing to treat chronic non-cancer pain has rapidly increased, despite a lack of evidence for long-term safety and effectiveness. A pain review service was developed to work with patients taking opioids long-term to explore opioid use, encourage non-drug-based alternatives, and, where appropriate, support dose reduction.

Aim: To evaluate the service and its potential impact on opioid use, health and wellbeing outcomes, and quality of life (QoL).

Design and setting: Mixed-methods evaluation of a one-to-one service based in two GP practices in South Gloucestershire, England, which took place from September 2016 to December 2017.

Method: Quantitative data were collected on baseline demographics; data on opioid use, misuse, and dose, health, wellbeing, QoL, and pain and interference with life measures were collected at baseline and follow-up. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews (n = 18 service users, n = 7 service providers) explored experiences of the service including perceived impacts and benefits.

Results: Of 59 patients who were invited, 34 (57.6%) enrolled in the service. The median prescribed opioid dose reduced from 90 mg (average daily morphine equivalent; interquartile range [IQR] 60 to 240) at baseline to 72 mg (IQR 30 to 160) at follow-up (P<0.001); three service users stopped using opioids altogether. On average, service users showed improvement on most health, wellbeing, and QoL outcomes. Perceived benefits were related to wellbeing, for example, improved confidence and self-esteem, use of pain management strategies, changes in medication use, and reductions in dose.

Conclusion: The service was well received, and health and wellbeing outcomes suggest a potential benefit. Following further service development, a randomised controlled trial to test this type of care pathway is warranted.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估初级保健为基础的阿片类药物和疼痛审查服务:在英国两个全科医生实践的混合方法评估。
背景:阿片类药物用于治疗慢性非癌性疼痛的处方迅速增加,尽管缺乏长期安全性和有效性的证据。开发了疼痛审查服务,与长期服用阿片类药物的患者一起探索阿片类药物的使用,鼓励非药物替代品,并在适当情况下支持减少剂量。目的:评估该服务及其对阿片类药物使用、健康和福祉结果以及生活质量(QoL)的潜在影响。设计和设置:2016年9月至2017年12月,在英国南格洛斯特郡的两个全科医生实践中,对一对一服务进行了混合方法评估。方法:收集基线人口统计学定量资料;在基线和随访时收集有关阿片类药物使用、滥用和剂量、健康、福祉、生活质量、疼痛和干扰生活措施的数据。25个半结构化访谈(n = 18个服务使用者,n = 7个服务提供者)探讨了服务的体验,包括感知到的影响和好处。结果:在59例被邀请的患者中,34例(57.6%)参加了该服务。处方阿片类药物的中位数剂量从90毫克(平均每日吗啡当量;基线时的四分位数范围[IQR] 60至240)至随访时的72毫克(IQR 30至160)。结论:该服务得到了很好的接受,健康和福祉结果表明潜在的益处。随着服务的进一步发展,有必要进行随机对照试验来检验这种护理途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信