scholarly journals Achieving the Right Balance in Oversight of Physician Opioid Prescribing for Pain: The Role of State Medical Boards

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane E. Hoffmann ◽  
Anita J. Tarzian

State medical boards are beginning to take a more balanced approach to monitoring and disciplining for prescribing of pain medications, according to this survey of state medical boards across the country. Overall, respondents indicated that they are becoming more educated and more sophisticated in their approach to complaints of opioid overprescribing. In addition, their responses reflect a heightened awareness of the appropriateness of treating chronic pain with controlled substances.Yet, despite these inroads, boards generally demonstrate a continued tolerance of pain undertreatment, the survey found. There is a discrepancy in the weight given to violation of standard of care, patient harm, and gross negligence for opioid overprescribing versus undertreatment of pain. Boards appear to have a higher threshold for patient harm in cases involving pain undertreatment — particularly for chronic nonmalignant pain.

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 296-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell K. Portenoy

During the past decade, debate has intensified about the role of long-term opioid therapy in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain. Specialists in pain management have discussed the issues extensively and now generally agree that a selected population of patients with chronic pain can attain sustained analgesia without significant adverse consequences. This perspective, however, is not uniformly accepted by pain specialists and has not been widely disseminated to other disciplines or the public. Rather, the more traditional perspective, which ascribes both transitory benefit and substantial cumulative risk to long-term opioid therapy, continues to predominate. According to this perspective, the inevitability of tolerance limits the possibility of sustained efficacy, and other pharmacological properties increase the likelihood of adverse outcomes, including persistent side-effects, impairment in physical and psychosocial functioning, and addiction. If accurate, these outcomes would indeed justify the withholding of opioid therapy for all but the most extreme cases of chronic nonmalignant pain.


1999 ◽  
Vol 90 (4) ◽  
pp. 1237-1237
Author(s):  
Scott A. Lang ◽  
John Arraf ◽  
Paul Tumber ◽  
Misbah Shah

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. E603-E610
Author(s):  
Mohab Ibrahim

Background: The management of chronic nonmalignant pain with high-dose opioids has partially contributed to the current opioid epidemic, with some responsibility shared by chronic pain clinics. Traditionally, both primary care providers and patients used chronic pain clinics as a source for continued medical management of patients on high-dose opioids, often resulting in tolerance and escalating doses. Although opioids continue to be an important component of the management of some chronic pain conditions, improvement in function and comfort must be documented. Pain clinics are ideally suited for reducing opioid usage while improving pain and function with the use of a multimodal approach to pain management. We assessed whether the application of multimodal treatment directed by pain specialists in a pain clinic provides for improved function and reduced dosages of opioid analgesics. Objective: We evaluated the role of a pain clinic staffed by fellowship-trained pain physicians in reducing pain and opioid use in chronic nonmalignant pain patients. Study Design: This study used a retrospective design. Setting: The research took place in an outpatient pain clinic in a tertiary referral center/teaching hospital. Methods: Of 1268 charts reviewed, 296 patients were on chronic opioids at the time of first evaluation. After a thorough evaluation, the patients were treated with nonopioid pharmacotherapy and interventional pain procedures as necessary. The data utilized from patients’ latest follow-up visit included current pain level using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11), opioid usage, and various functional parameters. Results: NRS-11 scores decreased by 33.8% from 6.8 (± 0.1)/10 to 4.5 (± 0.2)/10. The pain frequency and number of pain episodes improved by 36.8 ± 2 and 36.2 ± 2.1, respectively. Additionally, the ability to sleep, work, and perform chores significantly improved. Total opioid use decreased by about 55.4% from 53.8 ± 4 to about 24 ± 2.8 MME/patient/day. Limitation: This study is not a randomized prospective controlled study. The patients analyzed are still getting therapy and their pain status may change. Some opioids are underrepresented in the analyzed cohort. Finally, this study lacks in-depth stratification by type of pain, age, gender, and duration of opioid use. Conclusion: Chronic pain clinics can play a pivotal role in reducing opioid usage while improving pain and function in patients on chronic opioids. We wish to emphasize the importance of allocating resources toward nonopioid treatments that may improve the function and well-being of patients. Key words: Pain clinic, pain management, multimodal pain management, chronic pain, opioid reduction, improved pain, improved functional capacity


2006 ◽  
Vol 10 (S1) ◽  
pp. S224c-S225
Author(s):  
A.M. Sassen ◽  
N. Hermanides ◽  
R. Hulskamp ◽  
C. Heijting ◽  
R. Duckers ◽  
...  

BJPsych Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 235-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Honor Hsin ◽  
John Torous

SummaryThe potential of digital health tools such as smartphones and sensors to increase access to and enhance delivery of healthcare is well known. However, a lack of regulation and delineation between those technologies seeking to offer direct clinical diagnostics and treatments and those involving clinical care enhancements or direct-to-consumer resources has led to patient and clinician confusion about the appropriate use and role of digital health. Here, we propose that creating boundaries and better defining the scope of digital health technology will advance the field through matching the right use cases with the right tools. We further propose that ethical clinicians, as stewards of standard of care, are well suited to uphold these boundaries and to safeguard best practices in digital health.Declaration of interestH.H. is an employee of Verily Life Sciences and owns equity in this company. The views expressed here are those of the authors and are not official views of Verily Life Sciences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document