Nordan, Lisa

Background/Objective The aim of this cross-sectional study is to determine the prevalence of opioid use in a large sample of fibromyalgia (FM) patients and examine the factors associated with opioid prescription/use despite multiple clinical guidelines that do not recommend opioid use in this population. Methods Data were collected from a convenience sample of 698 patients admitted from August 2017 to May 2019 into an intensive 2-day Fibromyalgia Treatment Program at a tertiary medical center in the United States after FM diagnosis. Patients were administered the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire–Revised, the Center for Epidemiologic Study of Depression Scale, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale upon admission to the program. Demographic information and opioid use were self-reported. Logistic regression analysis was utilized to determine associations between patient-related variables and opioid use in this prospective study. Results Of 698 patients, 27.1% (n = 189) were taking opioids at intake. Extended duration of symptoms (>3 years), increased age, higher degree of functional impairment, and increased pain catastrophizing were significantly associated with opioid use. Conclusions Opioids are not recommended for the treatment of FM under current guidelines. Greater burden of illness appeared to be associated with the prescription and use of opioids in this population. These findings suggest that some providers may not be aware of current recommendations that have been found to be effective in the management of FM that are contained in guidelines. Alternative approaches to the management of FM that do not involve opioids are reviewed in an effort to improve care.

AbstractRational, aims, and objectivesUnderstanding of barriers and successes associated with the implementation of electronic patient self‐reported measures (ePSRMs) within clinical settings are limited and have not been pursued utilizing implementation science frameworks. This qualitative study is designed to assess staff perceptions of an ePSRM implementation.MethodsThe study took place in an academic hospital's Consultation Liaison Psychiatry practice. Qualitative interviews were conducted with the staff and clinicians from the practice. Participants were directly involved with the implementation and use of the ePSRM system within the Psychiatry practice. Interviews were structured around the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE‐AIM) framework.ResultsParticipants reported increased patient engagement as well as efficiency and time savings. The intervention was perceived to be more challenging for older patients. Facilitators include communicating the ePSRM to patients prior to the care visit, having enough trained staff or super‐users who can assist with technical problems, and having a shorter questionnaire.ConclusionsOverall, assessment of the ePSRM implementation was positive. Staff and clinicians indicated benefits in time, effectiveness, and improvements in patient treatment. Results indicate that defining how the system would fit within the clinical workflow was key, as was a flexible and user‐friendly technology platform. The ePSRM implementation was dependent upon clinical involvement and interest in adoption, while barriers were associated with technical challenges as well as some patient difficulties, such as cognitive impairment. The use of the RE‐AIM framework is valuable as it allows for systematic assessment of the implementation and identifies areas in that implementation has succeeded or is lacking.

Abstract Objectives To determine whether use of a patient portal during hospitalization is associated with improvement in hospital outcomes, 30-day readmissions, inpatient mortality, and 30-day mortality. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective propensity score–matched study that included all adult patients admitted to Mayo Clinic Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, from August 1, 2012, to July 31, 2014, who had signed up for a patient portal account prior to hospitalization (N = 7538). Results Out of the admitted patients with a portal account, 1566 (20.8%) accessed the portal while in the hospital. Compared to patients who did not access the portal, patients who accessed the portal were younger (58.8 years vs 62.3 years), had fewer elective admissions (54.2% vs 64.1%), were more frequently admitted to medical services (45.8% vs 35.2%), and were more likely to have liver disease (21.9% vs 12.9%) and higher disease severity scores (0.653 vs 0.456). After propensity score matching, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 cohorts with respect to 30-day readmission (P = .13), inpatient mortality (P = .82), or 30-day mortality (P = .082). Conclusion Use of the patient portal in the inpatient setting may not improve hospital outcomes. Future research should examine the association of portal use with more immediate inpatient health outcomes such as patient experience, patient engagement, medication reconciliation, and prevention of adverse events.