State medical board members' beliefs about pain, addiction, and diversion and abuse: a changing regulatory environment.

Three national surveys were conducted in 1991, 1997, and 2004 to evaluate state medical board members' knowledge and attitudes about prescribing opioid analgesics for pain management. Topics addressed include perceived legality of prolonged opioid prescribing, characteristics of addiction, prevalence of medication abuse and diversion, and perceived importance and influence of medical board policy. Questions were added in 2004 to determine board members' views about law enforcement involvement in physician investigations and prosecutions. This study assesses medical regulators' current beliefs and compares the 2004 responses with previous responses to determine how knowledge and attitudes about prescribing opioids have changed in recent years. Survey results show that board members have a greater understanding of pain management issues, particularly regarding characteristics of addiction and the legality of prolonged opioid prescribing for chronic noncancer pain. During the last 15 years, there has been substantial regulatory policy development, with medical boards adopting regulations, guidelines, or policy statements to provide guidance to licensees about using opioids to treat pain. However, many board members believe that federal and state law enforcement agencies have increased criminal investigations and prosecutions of physicians. We discuss appropriate regulatory and law enforcement responses to opioid prescribing violations, and suggest crucial next steps. PERSPECTIVE: The authors examine the evolution of state medical board members' knowledge and attitudes about prescribing opioid analgesics to treat chronic pain, demonstrate that medical regulators believe that there have been increased criminal investigations and prosecutions of physicians for their prescribing practices, and suggest ways to avoid unwarranted criminal prosecutions.     

Physicians' knowledge and attitudes toward the use of analgesics for cancer pain management: a survey of two medical centers in Taiwan

The purposes of this study were to examine the attitudes of physicians regarding the optimal use of analgesics for cancer pain management (CPM), to evaluate their knowledge and attitudes toward opioid prescribing, and to comprehend their perceptions of the barriers to optimal CPM. A survey was conducted on 356 physicians with cancer patient care responsibilities practicing in two medical centers in Taiwan. A total of 204 (57%) physicians responded, including internists (28%), surgeons (27%), oncologists (11%), anesthesiologists (10%), and other specialties (24%). The majority of physicians displayed significantly inadequate knowledge and negative attitudes toward the optimal use of analgesics and opioid prescribing. Multivariate analyses showed that the following six categories of physicians would be inclined to have inadequate knowledge of opioid prescribing: 1) those with perception of good medical school training in CPM, 2) those with perception of poor residency or fellowship training in CPM, 3) those with a medical specialty in surgery, medicine, or oncology (vs. anesthesiology), 4) those with limited clinical experience in cancer patient care (number of patients less than 30), 5) those with a limited aim of pain relief, and 6) those with an underestimation of analgesic effect. Additionally, physicians with inadequate knowledge of opioid prescribing and with hesitation to intervene earlier with maximal dose of analgesia would be inclined to have reluctant attitudes toward opioid prescribing. The most important barriers to optimal CPM identified by physicians themselves were physician-related problems, such as inadequate guidance from a pain specialist, inadequate knowledge of CPM, and inadequate pain assessment. The results of this study suggest that active analgesic education programs are urgently needed in Taiwan.     

Opioids,Chronic Pain,and Addiction in Primary Care

Research has largely ignored the systematic examination of physicians' attitudes towards providing care for patients with chronic noncancer pain. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators to opioid treatment of chronic noncancer pain patients by office-based medical providers. We used a qualitative study design using individual and group interviews. Participants were 23 office-based physicians in New England. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and systematically coded by a multidisciplinary team using the constant comparative method. Physician barriers included absence of objective or physiological measures of pain; lack of expertise in the treatment of chronic pain and coexisting disorders, including addiction; lack of interest in pain management; patients' aberrant behaviors; and physicians' attitudes toward prescribing opioid analgesics. Physician facilitators included promoting continuity of patient care and the use of opioid agreements. Physicians' perceptions of patient-related barriers included lack of physician responsiveness to patients' pain reports, negative attitudes toward opioid analgesics, concerns about cost, and patients' low motivation for pain treatment. Perceived logistical barriers included lack of appropriate pain management and addiction referral options, limited information regarding diagnostic workup, limited insurance coverage for pain management services, limited ancillary support for physicians, and insufficient time. Addressing these barriers to pain treatment will be crucial to improving pain management service delivery.     

Safe use of opioids in chronic noncancer pain

Many physicians avoid prescribing opioid analgesics for chronic pain because of misconceptions or fears about efficacy, adverse effects, abuse, and addiction potential. We discuss these issues and offer suggestions for the rational use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic noncancer pain.     

Chronic noncancer pain management in primary care: family medicine physicians’ risk assessment of opioid misuse

Objective: The majority of patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) are managed in the primary care settings. The primary care family physician (PCFP) generally has limited time, training, or access to resources to effectively evaluate and treat these patients, particularly when there is the added potential liability of prescribing opioids. The aim of this study is to make a favorable change in PCFPs’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices about opioid use in CNCP via education on assessment of the risk of opioid misuse. Materials and methods: The universe of this cross-sectional study comprised 36 family physicians working at Family Health Centers affiliated to Antalya Provincial Directorate of Health who volunteered to participate in the study. Initially, a survey on patients risk assessment was performed in both intervention and control groups; whereas the intervention group received education on assessment of the risk of opioid misuse, the control group did not. The survey was repeated after 6 months and the intervention group underwent a core examination. Data obtained were analyzed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 18.0 statistics program. Intervention and control groups were compared. Additionally, pre- and post-education results of the intervention group were also compared. Results: About 61.1% of family physicians reported concern and hesitation in prescribing opioids due to known risks, such as overdose, addiction, dependence, or diversion, and agreed that family physicians should apply risk assessment before opioid use in CNCP. Only 16.6% of PCFP reported that risk assessment is not so necessary, whereas 22.2% of PCFP were undecided. Although 47.2% of the family physicians expressed a willingness to apply risk assessment before starting opioids, the rate of eagerness increased markedly to 77.7% after the education, but the rate of increase in practicing was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Knowledge and competency of the family physicians in managing CNCP were improved as was expected. Although the rate of eagerness about risk assessment of opioid misuse was increased, expected increase in the rate of using risk assessment was not achieved. Further studies are needed to identify the reasons of the difficulties on changing the attitudes and practices of primary care physicians about this subject.     

Prescription opioid use and misuse: Piloting an educational strategy for rural primary care physicians

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a multifaceted educational intervention to improve the opioid prescribing practices of rural family physicians in a remote First Nations community.

Design

Prospective cohort study.

Setting

Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Participants

Family physicians.

Interventions

Eighteen family physicians participated in a 1-year study of a series of educational interventions on safe opioid prescribing. Interventions included a main workshop with a lecture and interactive case discussions, an online chat room, video case conferencing, and consultant support.

Main outcome measures

Responses to questionnaires at baseline and after 1 year on knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to opioid prescribing.

Results

The main workshop was feasible and was well received by primary care physicians in remote communities. At 1 year, physicians were less concerned about getting patients addicted to opioids and more comfortable with opioid dosing.

Conclusion

Multifaceted education and consultant support might play an important role in improving family physician comfort with opioid prescribing, and could improve the treatment of chronic pain while minimizing the risk of addiction.     

Controlled substances and pain management: changes in knowledge and attitudes of state medical regulators

Physicians report that concern about regulatory investigation negatively influences their prescribing of opioid analgesics. The views of medical regulators about the legality of prescribing controlled substances for pain management were studied in 1991. However, little is known about whether these views have changed in light of increased emphasis on pain management and educational programs for state medical boards. Two studies that examined this issue are described. In Study 1, a 1997 survey of state medical board members was compared to results obtained in 1991 to evaluate differences in knowledge and perceptions about opioid analgesics. Important changes were observed over time, particularly regarding characteristics of "addiction" and the legality of prolonged prescribing of opioids. For Study 2, a longitudinal survey was conducted of medical board members who participated in five workshops about pain management and regulatory policy. Results revealed significant and sustained changes in attitudes about the incidence of iatrogenic addiction when using opioids to treat pain, the analgesic and side-effect properties of opioids, and the perceived legality of prescribing opioids. Recommendations for reducing concerns about regulatory scrutiny are presented, including the need for a more intensive education program, increasing the rate of adoption of new state medical board policies, and improving communication between regulators and clinicians.     

Managing Chronic Pain in Cancer Survivors Prescribed Long-Term Opioid Therapy: A National Survey of Ambulatory Palliative Care Providers

Context

Chronic pain, or pain lasting more than three months, is common among cancer survivors, who are often prescribed long-term opioid therapy (LTOT).

Special aspects of cancer pain management in a Chinese general hospital

China is still faced with a challenge in cancer pain management. The purposes of this study are to assess the current status of cancer pain management, and physicians' attitudes in China towards cancer pain management. The survey was done in a Chinese general hospital; 427 physicians and 387 cancer pain patients participated. The survey consisted of questionnaires to evaluate cancer pain management and physicians' knowledge of, and attitudes towards, cancer pain management. A total of 43% of patients with cancer pain and 51% with bone pain felt that they had been inadequately treated. The physicians rated the main reason for not using opioid drugs as the strong and difficult to control side-effects. The four main barriers to optimal management of cancer pain were: inadequate pain assessment; excessive state regulation of the prescribing of opioids; inadequate staff knowledge of pain management; and lack of access to powerful analgesics. To conclude: In China, there are some special aspects of cancer pain management, including physicians' concern about using opioid drugs, fear of being unable to manage adverse effects of opioids, and inadequately treated bone pain.     

Knowledge and Attitudes of Health-Care Providers Toward Cancer Pain Management: A Comparison of Physicians, Nurses, and Pharmacists in the State of New Hampshire

The knowledge and attitudes toward cancer pain management of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists in the state of New Hampshire were examined through the use of a statewide survey. Many of the providers who completed the survey, and thus indicated that they treated patients with cancer pain on a regular basis, were not pain or oncology specialists. Most of these providers were quite well informed about the fundamentals of cancer pain management. Approximately 90% of providers in all three groups were not concerned about addiction among cancer patients. Yet, there was a small percentage of providers who responded in less than optimal ways to items dealing with opioid pharmacology, pain assessment, and the importance of pain relief. Comparison of responses among provider groups indicated that nurses were the most knowledgeable and pharmacists the least knowledgeable about pain assessment. Physicians were the most knowledgeable regarding opioid pharmacology but seemed the least committed to providing optimal pain relief. Further analysis identified a small group of physicians that included a disproportionately high percentage of family practitioners and surgeons who consistently responded in less than optimal ways to items dealing with the importance of pain relief. The results of this study indicate a continuing need for broad-based educational programs in cancer pain management and for new initiatives focused on practitioners who see relatively few cancer patients and may have difficulty accessing traditional educational programs.     

Physicians’ attitudes about interprofessional treatment of chronic pain: family physicians are considered the most important collaborators

Scand J Caring Sci; 2013; 27; 303–310 Physicians’ attitudes about interprofessional treatment of chronic pain: family physicians are considered the most important collaborators Aims and objectives: Interprofessional collaboration is the process in which different professional groups work together to positively impact health care. We aimed to explore physicians’ attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration in the context of chronic pain management with the implication that if attitudes are not positive, appropriate interventions could be developed. Design: A quantitative attitudes study. Ethical issues: The ethical committee approved the study. Methods: A web‐based survey about interprofessional treatment of chronic pain was administered to physicians. Outcome measures were as follows: physicians’ demographic and workplace information, previous experience of working within an interprofessional team, and attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration in chronic pain management. Results: There were 90 physicians who responded to the survey. Physicians had positive attitudes towards team work in the context of chronic pain, but they were undecided about sharing their role within an interprofessional team. The family physician was singled out as the most important as well as the most common collaborator in chronic pain treatment. Interprofessional educational seminars and workshops were suggested as methods for improving interprofessional collaboration. Conclusions: Interprofessional collaboration may be enhanced with continuing medical education that will bring together different healthcare professionals, enable them to exchange experiences and learn about their potential roles within a team.     

Survey of Ontario primary care physicians' experiences with opioid prescribing

Objective

To measure physicians’ experiences with opioid-related adverse events and their perceived level of confidence in their opioid prescribing skills and practices.

Design

Mailed survey.

Setting

The province of Ontario.

Participants

A total of 1000 primary care physicians randomly selected from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario registration database.

Main outcome measures

Opioid-related adverse events and concerns (eg, number of patients, type of opioid, cause of the event or concern); physicians’ confidence, comfort, and satisfaction with opioid prescribing; physicians’ opinions on strategies to optimize their prescribing; and physicians’ perspectives of their interactions with pharmacists and nurses.

Results

The response rate was close to 66%, for a total of 658 participants. Almost all respondents reported prescribing opioids for chronic pain in the past 3 months. Eighty-six percent of respondents reported being confident in their prescribing of opioids, but 42% of respondents indicated that at least 1 patient had experienced an adverse event related to opioids in the past year, usually involving oxycodone, and 16.3% of respondents did not know if their patients had experienced any opioid-related adverse events. The most commonly cited factors leading to adverse events were that the patient took more than prescribed, the prescribed dose was too high, or the patient took alcohol or sedating drugs with the opioids. Most physicians had concerns about the opioid use of 1 or more of their patients; concerns included running out of opioids early, minimal access to pain and addiction treatment, and addiction and overdose. The reported number of physicians’ patients taking opioids was positively associated with their confidence and comfort levels in opioid prescribing and negatively associated with their belief that many patients become addicted to opioids.

Conclusion

Most physicians have encountered opioid-related adverse events. Comprehensive strategies are required to promote safe prescribing of opioids, including guidelines and comprehensive office-system materials.     

Physicians' attitudes toward pain and the use of opioid analgesics: results of a survey from the Texas Cancer Pain Initiative

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive progress in the scientific understanding of pain in humans, serious mismanagement and undermedication in treating acute and chronic pain is a continuing problem. This study was designed to examine the barriers to adequate pain management, especially as they might be associated with community size and medical discipline. METHODS: A 59-item survey was used to measure physicians' attitudes, knowledge, and psychologic factors that contribute to pain management practices. RESULTS: Overall, a significant number of physicians in this survey revealed opiophobia (prejudice against the use of opioid analgesics), displayed lack of knowledge about pain and its treatment, and had negative views about patients with chronic pain. There were significant differences among groups of physicians based on size of geographic practice area and medical discipline. CONCLUSIONS: New educational strategies are needed to overcome these barriers and to improve pain treatment in routine medical practice. The effect of practice milieu must be taken into consideration.     

Physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practice of pharmacologic treatment of hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how well physicians who treat hypertension know the indications and contraindications for particular antihypertensive therapies, and how closely their opinions and practice of hypertension treatment agree with national guidelines. METHODS: We surveyed by mail a stratified random sample of 10,000 US cardiologists, internists, and general/family practitioners. This survey explored their knowledge, attitudes, and practices with respect to the treatment of hypertension. Responses were compared with national guidelines and product labeling at the time of the survey. Results were stratified by physician specialty. RESULTS: A total of 1,023 physicians, or 10.2% of the sample, responded to the survey. Only 37.3% answered all four knowledge questions correctly, including 25.7% of general/family practitioners, 38.3% of internists, and 49.5% of cardiologists (p < 0.001). In their attitudes with respect to evaluating high blood pressure and establishing treatment goals, most respondents agreed with established guidelines. However, when asked how they would treat uncomplicated, mild hypertension, only 23% limited their selection to diuretics and beta-blockers in accordance with the guidelines. Cardiologists in particular were more likely than internists or general/family practitioners to choose other drug classes, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme Inhibitors or calcium-channel blockers. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our survey suggest that national efforts to educate physicians about the increasingly complex armamentarium for hypertension, and to persuade them to base their prescribing on the results of randomized, controlled trials of primary prevention, must be continued.     

Attitudes of internal medicine physicians toward type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to identify differences among internists in their attitudes about diabetes and how those attitudes influence practice behavior. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 55 internists in an academic medical center was done using the Diabetes Attitude Scale (DAS-3), a valid and reliable measure of attitudes toward diabetes. RESULTS: Most respondents were white (89%), male (65%), and < or = 40 years old (85%). On the need for special training, internists were significantly different from the standardized norm for the DAS-3. Similar differences were observed on the seriousness of type 2 diabetes, the value attached to "tight control," and patient autonomy. Differences by age, sex, and level of training were not significant. CONCLUSION: Regardless of age, sex, or level of training, internal medicine physicians have negative attitudes toward type 2 diabetes that require future educational interventions.