Background Efforts to reduce opioid overdose fatalities have resulted in tapering (i.e., reducing or discontinuing) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients’ experiences. Objective To explore patients’ perspectives on opioid taper experiences to ultimately improve taper processes and outcomes. Design Qualitative study. Participants Patients on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain who had undergone a reduction of opioid daily prescribed dosage of ≥50% in the past 2 years in two distinct medical systems and regions. Approach From 2019 to 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, systematically coded, and analyzed to summarize the content and identify key themes regarding taper experiences overall and with particular attention to patient-provider relationships and provider communication during tapers. Key Results Participants (n=41) had lived with chronic pain for an average of 17.4 years (range, 3–36 years) and described generally adverse experiences with opioid tapers, the initiation of which was not always adequately justified or explained to them. Consequences of tapers ranged from minor to substantial and included withdrawal, mobility issues, emotional distress, exacerbated mental health symptoms, and feelings of social stigmatization for which adequate supports were typically unavailable. Narratives highlighted the consequential role of patient-provider relationships throughout taper experiences, with most participants describing significant interpersonal challenges including poor provider communication and limited patient engagement in decision making. A few participants identified qualities of providers, relationships, and communication that fostered more positive taper experiences and outcomes. Conclusions From patients’ perspectives, opioid tapers can produce significant physical, emotional, and social consequences, sometimes reducing trust and engagement in healthcare. Patient-provider relationships and communication influence patients’ perceptions of the quality and outcomes of opioid tapers. To improve patients’ experiences of opioid tapers, tapering plans should be based on individualized risk-benefit assessments and involve patient-centered approaches and improved provider communication.
Objectives: Opioid overdose deaths in Massachusetts linked to illicitly-manufactured fentanyl have increased dramatically. In response, an urban safety-net hospital added urine fentanyl testing with reflex confirmation testing to its standard urine toxicology panel. The goals of this study were to describe fentanyl toxicology test results, identify the positive predictive value of presumptive fentanyl immunoassay, and describe co-substance use among those with unexpected fentanyl positive results. Methods: We included urine toxicology tests from January through June 2016 analyzed at an urban safety-net hospital. We excluded tests from individuals prescribed or administered fentanyl within the preceding 72 hours. Positive fentanyl immunoassay tests underwent reflex chromatography confirmation testing. Samples that confirmed positive for acetyl fentanyl and/or fentanyl and/or norfentanyl were considered true positives. Results: Of 11,873 urine samples, 10.4% of samples screened fentanyl positive and 8.8% were confirmed fentanyl positive. The positive predictive value of a positive urine fentanyl screen was 85.7%. Of 4398 unique patients, 13.2% had at least 1 test confirmed positive for nonprescription fentanyl. Patients with a confirmed fentanyl positive drug test were more likely to have positive urine drug test for barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine, methadone, and opiates, and less likely to have oxycodone or buprenorphine. Conclusions: At an urban safety-net hospital, nonprescription fentanyl use was common and was associated with greater use of other substances favoring routine fentanyl testing. Although the positive predictive value of the screening test was high, confirmation testing detected substantial numbers of false positives, especially in older patients. Therefore, fentanyl confirmation testing should be used when results will change treatment approach and patient education.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.