Until recently, the belief that adequate pain management was not achievable while patients remained on buprenorphine was the impetus for the perioperative discontinuation of buprenorphine. We aimed to use an expert consensus Delphibased survey technique to 1) specify the need for perioperative guidelines in this context and 2) offer a set of recommendations for the perioperative management of these patients. The major recommendation of this practice advisory is to continue buprenorphine therapy in the perioperative period. It is rarely appropriate to reduce the buprenorphine dose irrespective of indication or formulation. If analgesia is inadequate after optimisation of adjunct analgesic therapies, we recommend initiating a full mu agonist while continuing buprenorphine at some dose. The panel believes that before operation, physicians must distinguish between buprenorphine use for chronic pain (weaning/conversion from longterm high-dose opioids) and opioid use disorder (OUD) as the primary indication for buprenorphine therapy. Patients should ideally be discharged on buprenorphine, although not necessarily at their preoperative dose. Depending on analgesic requirements, they may be discharged on a full mu agonist. Overall, long-term buprenorphine treatment retention and harm reduction must be considered during the perioperative period when OUD is a primary diagnosis. The authors recognise that inter-patient variability will require some individualisation of clinical practice advisories. Clinical practice advisories are largely based on lower classes of evidence (level 4, level 5). Further research is required in order to implement meaningful changes in practitioner behaviour for this patient group.

Background An increasing number of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) are treated with opioid agonistantagonists such as buprenorphine/naloxone. Perioperative management of patients on buprenorphine/naloxone is inconsistent and remains a controversial topic with mismanagement posing a significant risk to the long-term health of these patients.

BackgroundMultidisciplinary pain treatment facilities (MPTFs) are considered the optimal settings for the management of chronic pain (CP). This study aimed (1) to determine the distribution of MPTFs across Canada, (2) to document time to access and types of services, and (3) to compare the results to those obtained in 2005–2006.MethodsThis cross-sectional study used the same MPTF definition as in 2005–2006—that is, a clinic staffed with professionals from a minimum of three different disciplines (including at least one medical specialty) and whose services were integrated within the facility. A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify existing MPTFs across Canada. Administrative leads at each MPTF were invited to complete an online questionnaire regarding their facilities.ResultsQuestionnaires were completed by 104 MPTFs (response rate 79.4%). Few changes were observed in the distribution of MPTFs across Canada compared with 12 years ago. Most (91.3%) are concentrated in large urban cities. Prince Edward Island and the Territories still lack MPTFs. The number of pediatric-only MPTFs has nearly doubled but remains small (n=9). The median wait time for a first appointment in publicly funded MPTFs is about the same as 12 years ago (5.5 vs 6 months). Small but positive changes were also observed.ConclusionAccessibility to public MPTFs continues to be limited in Canada, resulting in lengthy wait times for a first appointment. Community-based MPTFs and virtual care initiatives to distribute pain services into regional and remote communities are needed to provide patients with CP with optimal care.

This study aimed to assess the perceived value of the Cognitive Aids for Role Definition (CARD) protocol for simulated intraoperative cardiac arrests. Sixteen interprofessional operating room teams completed three consecutive simulated intraoperative cardiac arrest scenarios: current standard, no CARD; CARD, no CARD teaching; and CARD, didactic teaching. Each team participated in a focus group interview immediately following the third scenario; data were transcribed verbatim and qualitatively analysed. After 6 months, participants formed eight new teams randomised to two groups (CARD or no CARD) and completed a retention intraoperative cardiac arrest simulation scenario. All simulation sessions were video recorded and expert raters assessed team performance. Qualitative analysis of the 16 focus group interviews revealed 3 thematic dimensions: role definition in crisis management; logistical issues; and the "real life" applicability of CARD. Members of the interprofessional team perceived CARD very positively. Exploratory quantitative analysis found no significant differences in team performance with or without CARD (p > 0.05). In conclusion, qualitative data suggest that the CARD protocol clarifies roles and team coordination during interprofessional crisis management and has the potential to improve the team performance. The concept of a self-organising team with defined roles is promising for patient safety.