The Effects of Opioids on Cognition in Older Adults With Cancer and Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review

ContextOpioids are prescribed to manage moderate-to-severe pain and can be used with older adults; however, they may lead to several adverse effects, including cognitive impairment.ObjectivesTo identify, appraise, and synthesize evidence on the impact of opioids on cognition in older adults with cancer/chronic noncancer pain, and screening tools/neuropsychological assessments used to detect opioid-induced cognitive impairment.MethodsA systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (international prospective register of systematic reviews registration: CRD42018092943). MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched up to December 2018. Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and observational studies of adults aged 65 years and older with cancer/chronic noncancer pain taking opioids were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted.ResultsFrom 4036 records, 10 met inclusion criteria. Five studies used one screening tool, and five studies used a range of neuropsychological assessments; assessing 14 cognitive domains. Most studies demonstrated no effect of opioid use on cognitive domains, whereas four studies showed mixed effects. In particular, attention, language, orientation, psychomotor function, and verbal working/delayed episodic memory were worsened. Changes to cognitive function were predominantly observed in studies with higher mean doses of opioids (120–190.7mg oral morphine equivalent daily dose).ConclusionBoth improvements and impairments to cognition were observed in studies with higher mean opioid doses. In clinical practice, a brief screening tool assessing attention, language, orientation, psychomotor function, and verbal working/delayed episodic memory may be beneficial to detect worsening cognition in older adults with chronic pain using opioids.     

A Qualitative Analysis of Patients’ Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: “Let Me Know I Have a Choice”

Background and Objectives

Despite increasing attention to the use of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), little is known about ED patients’ perspectives regarding this practice. We sought to explore the use of SDM from the perspectives of ED patients, focusing on what affects patients’ desired level of involvement and what barriers and facilitators patients find most relevant to their experience.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of ED patients or their proxies at two sites. An interview guide was developed from existing literature and expert consensus and based on a framework underscoring the importance of both knowledge and power. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process by a three‐person coding team. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized.

Results

Twenty‐nine patients and proxies participated. The mean age of participants was 56 years (range, 20 to 89 years), and 13 were female. Participants were diverse in regard to race/ethnicity, education, number of previous ED visits, and presence of chronic conditions. All participants wanted some degree of involvement in decision making. Participants who made statements suggesting high self‐efficacy and those who expressed mistrust of the health care system or previous negative experiences wanted a greater degree of involvement. Facilitators to involvement included familiarity with the decision at hand, physicians’ good communication skills, and clearly delineated options. Some participants felt that their own relative lack of knowledge, compared to that of the physicians, made their involvement inappropriate or unwanted. Many participants had no expectation for SDM and although they did want involvement when asked explicitly, they were otherwise likely to defer to physicians without discussion. Many did not recognize opportunities for SDM in their clinical care.

Conclusions

This exploration of ED patients’ perceptions of SDM suggests that most patients want some degree of involvement in medical decision making but more proactive engagement of patients by clinicians is often needed. Further research should examine these issues in a larger and more representative population.

     

Changes in Quality of Life after 3 months of Usual Care in a Large Sample of Patients with Noncancer Pain: The “QOOL: Quality of Life and Pain” Study

Large‐scale observational studies can provide useful information on changes in health outcomes over time. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of 3 months of usual care on quality of life (QOL) and pain outcomes in noncancer chronic pain patients managed by pain specialists and to examine factors associated with changes in QOL. This was assessed using the EQ‐5D and pain outcomes using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Changes in QOL and pain were studied for the overall sample and in subgroups defined by baseline pain severity. Multivariate regression was used to investigate factors associated with change on EQ‐5D. Three thousand and twenty‐nine patients were included for analysis. After 3 months of usual care, a mean of 40.9% of patients showed improvement on individual EQ‐5D dimensions, with the highest rates of improvement seen on the pain/discomfort (50.8%) and anxiety/depression (48.3%) dimensions. The EQ‐5D Index increased from a mean (SD) of 0.35 (0.2) to 0.58 (0.21) points between baseline and month 3, and the thermometer from 41.5 (19.4) to 58.7 (17.8), indicating a large effect. Improvements in QOL were larger in those with severe baseline pain. The BPI severity summary score improved from a mean (SD) of 6.5 (1.4) to 4.1 (1.7) and the interference summary score from 6.6 (1.5) to 4.2 (1.9). Changes on the BPI severity and interference scores were associated with changes in the EQ‐5D Index and thermometer. In conclusion, 3 months of usual care in noncancer pain patients led to substantial improvements in QOL and pain outcomes.     

“Just see the person who is still a person (…) they still have feelings”: Qualitative description of the skills required to establish therapeutic alliance with patients with a diagnosis of dementia

Establishing a relationship is considered the foundation of providing person‐centred care (PCC) when working with a person who has a diagnosis of dementia. Currently, there is a lack of consensus about the how to develop this relationship. This aim of this study was to explore the key skills adopted by clinicians to establish an effective care relationship, referred to as therapeutic alliance, specific to working with patients who have dementia. Participants were clinicians (nursing and allied health professionals) from two older person’s mental health service teams (inpatient and community) who routinely provided clinical care to patients with a diagnosis of dementia. Participants self‐selected from a purposive sample to complete a semi‐structured interview about their provision of care to, and strategies used to engage with, people with a diagnosis of dementia. Exploratory qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using mixed inductive and deductive procedures. Five themes were identified as the interpersonal skills used to develop relationships with patients including the following: empathy, unconditional positive regard, congruence, psychological flexibility, and communication. Findings from this study provide direction for training of clinicians employed in a dementia setting and can also be generalized to other non‐specific clinical settings where clinicians may incidentally provide treatment to patients with a diagnosis of dementia.