Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 1;21(10):2574-2582.
doi: 10.1093/pm/pnz361.

Medical Record Documentation About Opioid Tapering: Examining Benefit-to-Harm Framework and Patient Engagement

Affiliations

Medical Record Documentation About Opioid Tapering: Examining Benefit-to-Harm Framework and Patient Engagement

Michele Buonora et al. Pain Med. .

Abstract

Objective: Guidelines recommend that clinicians make decisions about opioid tapering for patients with chronic pain using a benefit-to-harm framework and engaging patients. Studies have not examined clinician documentation about opioid tapering using this framework.

Design and setting: Thematic and content analysis of clinician documentation about opioid tapering in patients' medical records in a large academic health system.

Methods: Medical records were reviewed for patients aged 18 or older, without cancer, who were prescribed stable doses of long-term opioid therapy between 10/2015 and 10/2016 then experienced an opioid taper (dose reduction ≥30%) between 10/2016 and 10/2017. Inductive thematic analysis of clinician documentation within six months of taper initiation was conducted to understand rationale for taper, and deductive content analysis was conducted to determine the frequencies of a priori elements of a benefit-to-harm framework.

Results: Thematic analysis of 39 patients' records revealed 1) documented rationale for tapering prominently cited potential harms of continuing opioids, rather than observed harms or lack of benefits; 2) patient engagement was variable and disagreement with tapering was prominent. Content analysis found no patients' records with explicit mention of benefit-to-harm assessments. Benefits of continuing opioids were mentioned in 56% of patients' records, observed harms were mentioned in 28%, and potential harms were mentioned in 90%.

Conclusions: In this study, documentation of opioid tapering focused on potential harms of continuing opioids, indicated variable patient engagement, and lacked a complete benefit-to-harm framework. Future initiatives should develop standardized ways of incorporating a benefit-to-harm framework and patient engagement into clinician decisions and documentation about opioid tapering.

Keywords: Chronic Pain; Clinician Documentation; Opioid Taper; Pain Management; Primary Care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram.

References

    1. Chou R, Fanciullo GJ, Fine PG, Miaskowski C, Passik SD, Portenoy RK.. Opioids for chronic noncancer pain: Prediction and identification of aberrant drug-related behaviors: A review of the evidence for an American Pain Society and American Academy of Pain Medicine clinical practice guideline. J Pain 2009;10(2):131–46. - PubMed
    1. Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R.. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain—United States, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65(1):1–49. - PubMed
    1. US Department of Veterans Affairs: VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines: Management of opioid therapy for chronic pain. Available at: http://www.healthquality.va.gov/guidelines/Pain/cot (accessed February 2018).
    1. Sullivan MD, Turner JA, DiLodovico C, D’Appollonio A, Stephens K, Chan YF.. Prescription opioid taper support for outpatients with chronic pain: A randomized controlled trial. J Pain 2017;18(3):308–18. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Darnall BD, Ziadni MS, Stieg RL, Mackey IG, Kao MC, Flood P.. Patient-centered prescription opioid tapering in community outpatients with chronic pain. JAMA Intern Med 2018;178(5):707–8. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances