Background

Physicians' fear of difficult patient interactions is an important barrier to discontinuing long-term opioid therapy.

Objective

To identify patient statements about opioids that indicate potential openness to tapering opioids or trying non-opioid pain treatments DESIGN: This is an observational study of regularly scheduled primary care visits involving discussion of chronic pain management. A coding system to characterize patient assessments about opioids, physician responses to assessments, and patient-endorsed opioid side effects was developed and applied to transcripts of video-recorded visits. All visits were independently coded by 2 authors.

Participants

Eighty-six established adult patients taking opioids for chronic pain; 49 physicians in 2 academic primary care clinics MAIN MEASURES: Frequency and topic of patients' opioid assessments; proportion of opioid assessments classified as clues (assessments indicating potential willingness to consider non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses); physician responses to patient clues; frequency and type of patient-endorsed side effects KEY RESULTS: Patients made a mean of 3.2 opioid assessments (median 2) per visit. The most common assessment topics were pain relief (51%), effect on function (21%), and opioid safety (14%). Forty-seven percent of opioid assessments (mean 1.5 per visit) were classified as clues. Fifty-three percent of visits included ≥ 1 clue; 21% of visits contained ≥ 3 clues. Physicians responded to patient clues with no/minimal response 43% of the time, sympathetic/empathetic statements 14% of the time, and further explored clues 43% of the time. Fifty-eight percent of patients endorsed ≥ 1 opioid-related side effect; 10% endorsed ≥ 3 side effects. The most commonly endorsed side effects were constipation (15% of patients), sedation (15%), withdrawal symptoms (13%), and nausea (12%).

Conclusions

Patient statements suggesting openness to non-opioid pain treatments or lower opioid doses are common during routine primary care visits. Listening for and exploring these clues may be a patient-centered strategy for broaching difficult topics with patients on long-term opioid therapy.

Objectives

Trauma and acute care surgery (TACS) patients face complex barriers associated with hospitalization discharge that hinder successful recovery. We sought to better understand the challenges in the discharge transition of care, which might suggest interventions that would optimize it.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study of patient and clinician perceptions about the hospital discharge process at an urban level 1 trauma center. We performed semi-structured interviews that we recorded, transcribed, coded both deductively and inductively, and analyzed thematically. We enrolled patients and clinicians until we achieved data saturation.

Results

We interviewed 10 patients and 10 clinicians. Most patients (70%) were male, and the mean age was 57±16 years. Clinicians included attending surgeons, residents, nurse practitioners, nurses, and case managers. Three themes emerged. (1) Communication (patient-clinician and clinician-clinician): clinicians understood that the discharge process malfunctions when communication with patients is not clear. Many patients discussed confusion about their discharge plan. Clinicians lamented that poorly written discharge summaries are an inadequate means of communication between inpatient and outpatient clinicians. (2) Discharge teaching and written instructions: patients appreciated discharge teaching but found written discharge instructions to be overwhelming and unhelpful. Clinicians preferred spending more time teaching patients and understood that written instructions contain too much jargon. (3) Outpatient care coordination: patients and clinicians identified difficulties with coordinating ongoing outpatient care. Both identified the patient's primary care physician and insurance coverage as important determinants of the outpatient experience.

Conclusion

TACS patients face numerous challenges at hospitalization discharge. Clinicians struggle to effectively help their patients with this stressful transition. Future interventions should focus on improving communication with patients, active communication with a patient's primary care physician, repurposing, and standardizing the discharge summary to serve primarily as a means of care coordination, and assisting the patient with navigating the transition.

Level of evidence

III-descriptive, exploratory study.

Background

Lung cancer surgery has a significant impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). In prior studies of HRQOL after lung cancer surgery, researchers selected the HRQOL domains of interest. To increase the patient-centeredness of these studies, we conducted a qualitative study to ascertain which aspects of HRQOL are most relevant to them postoperatively and to identify Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System measures most germane to patients undergoing lobectomy for lung cancer.

Methods

We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 25 patients after lobectomy for lung cancer to solicit input regarding the physical, social, and emotional HRQOL domains relevant after surgery. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and a thematic content analysis to identify HRQOL themes was performed. Themes were integrated to create a conceptual framework to guide outcome measurement selection.

Results

Qualitative analysis indicated that within the physical health domain, patients were most concerned about general physical function (100% of participants), pain (96%), fatigue (96%), and dyspnea (76%). Neuropathic pain was reported by 28% of participants. Instrumental (100%) and emotional social support (88%) and positive emotions/relief/hope (96%) were also important. Two cross-cutting themes were the desire to maintain independence (32%) and preparing for surgery/expectations (92%).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that a number of physical, social, and emotional HRQOL domains are relevant after lobectomy for lung cancer. These domains are currently represented by Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System measures and can be readily assessed for clinical or research purposes.

Partnering across health clinics and community organisations, while worthwhile for improving health and well-being, is challenging and time consuming. Even partnerships that have essential elements for success in place face inevitable challenges. To better understand how cross-organisational partnerships work in practice, this paper examines collaborations between six primary care clinics and community-based organisations in the United States that were part of an initiative to address late-life depression using an enhanced collaborative care model (Archstone Foundation Care Partners Project). As part of an evaluation of the Care Partners Project, 54 key informant interviews and 10 focus groups were conducted from 2015 to 2017. Additionally, more than 80 project-related documents were reviewed. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to code the transcripts and identify prominent themes in the data. Examining clinic and community organisation partnerships in practice highlighted their inherent complexity. The partnerships were fluid and constantly evolving, shaped by a multiplicity of perspectives and values, and vulnerable to unpredictability. Care Partners sites negotiated the complexity of their partnerships drawing upon three main strategies: adaptation (allowing for flexibility and rapid change); integration (providing opportunities for multi-level partnerships within and across organisations) and cultivation (fostering a commitment to the partnership and its value). These strategies provided opportunities for Care Partners collaborators to work with the inherent complexity of partnering. Intentionally acknowledging and embracing such complexity rather than trying to reduce or avoid it, may allow clinic and community collaborators to strengthen and sustain their partnerships.

Background

Pediatric emergency telemedicine consultations have been shown to provide support to community emergency departments treating critically ill pediatric patients. However, despite the recognized value of telemedicine, adoption has been slow. To determine why clinicians frequently do not use telemedicine when it is available for pediatric patients, as well as to learn how to improve telemedicine programs, we conducted a qualitative study using stakeholder interviews.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study using grounded theory methodology, with in-depth interviews of referring and accepting physicians and referring, transport, and transfer center nurses. We analyzed data iteratively and adapted the interview guide based on early interviews. We solicited feedback from the participants on the conceptual model.

Results

Sixteen interviews were conducted; all respondents had been involved in a telemedicine consultation at least five times, with some having used telemedicine more than 30 times. Analysis resulted in three themes: 1) recognizing and addressing telemedicine biases are central to gaining buy-in; 2) as technology advances, telemedicine processes need to adapt accordingly; and 3) telemedicine increases collaboration among health care providers and patients/families in the patient care process.

Conclusions

To improve patient care through increased use of telemedicine for pediatric emergency consultations, processes need to be modified to address provider biases and end-user concerns. Processes should be adapted to allow users to utilize a variety of technologies (including smartphones) and to enable more users, such as nurses, to participate. Finally, telemedicine can be used to improve the patient and family experience by including them in consultations.