scholarly journals Opioid use among cancer survivors: A call to action for oncology and primary care providers

Cancer ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 124 (3) ◽  
pp. 648-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larissa Nekhlyudov ◽  
Olaf P. Geerse ◽  
Catherine M. Alfano
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Call To Action

Primary Care of Opioid use Disorder: The End of “the French Model”?

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 346-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Dupouy ◽  
Sandy Maumus-Robert ◽  
Yohann Mansiaux ◽  
Antoine Pariente ◽  
Maryse Lapeyre-Mestre
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Private Practice ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Access To Treatment ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
French Model

<b><i>Background:</i></b> In France, most patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) have been treated by buprenorphine, prescribed by general practitioners (GP) in private practice since 1996. This has contributed to building a ‘French model’ facilitating access to treatment based on the involvement of GPs in buprenorphine prescription. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> Our study aimed to assess whether the involvement of primary care in OUD management has changed lately. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> Using data from the French National Health Insurance database, we conducted a yearly repeated cross-sectional study (2009–2015) and described proportion of opioid maintenance treatment (OMT)-prescribing GPs and OMT-dispensing community pharmacies (CP); and number of patients by GP or CP. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Whereas the number of buprenorphine-prescribing GPs in private practice remained quite stable (decrease of 3%), a substantial decrease in buprenorphine initial prescribers among private GPs was observed. In 2009, 10.3% of private GPs (6,297 from 61,301 French private GPs) prescribed buprenorphine for the initiation of a treatment, whereas they were 5.7% (<i>n</i> = 3,539 from 62,071 private GPs) in 2015 (43.8% decrease). GPs issuing initial prescriptions of buprenorphine tended to care for a higher number of patients treated by buprenorphine (14.6 ± 27.1 patients in 2009 to 16.0 ± 35.4 patients in 2015). The number of CPs dispensing buprenorphine remained quite stable (decrease of 2%), while there was a 7.5% decrease in the total number of French CPs across the study period. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Our results suggest that primary care providers seem less engaged in buprenorphine initiation in OUD patients, while CPs have not modified their involvement towards these patients.

Facilitators and barriers to utilization of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care in South Carolina

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-39
Author(s):  
Sarah M Oros ◽  
Lillian M Christon ◽  
Kelly S Barth ◽  
Carole R Berini ◽  
Bennie L Padgett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
South Carolina ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Focus Group Interviews ◽  
Facilitators And Barriers ◽  
Group Interviews

Objective Utilization of medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) has not been widely adopted by primary care providers. This study sought to identify interprofessional barriers and facilitators for use of MOUD (specifically naltrexone and buprenorphine) among current and future primary care providers in a southeastern academic center in South Carolina. Method Faculty, residents, and students within family medicine, internal medicine, and a physician assistant program participated in focus group interviews, and completed a brief survey. Survey data were analyzed quantitatively, and focus group transcripts were analyzed using a deductive qualitative content analysis, based upon the theory of planned behavior. Results Seven groups ( N = 46) completed focus group interviews and surveys. Survey results indicated that general attitudes towards MOUD were positive and did not differ significantly among groups. Subjective norms around prescribing and controllability (i.e., beliefs about whether prescribing was up to them) differed between specialties and between level of training groups. Focus group themes highlighted attitudes about MOUD (e.g., “opens the flood gates” to patients with addiction) and perceived facilitators and barriers of using MOUD in primary care settings. Participants felt that although MOUD in primary care would improve access and reduce stigma for patients, prescribing requires improved provider education and an integrated system of care. Conclusions The results of this study provide an argument for tailoring education to specifically address the barriers primary care prescribers perceive. Results promote the utilization of active, hands-on learning approaches, to ultimately promote uptake of MOUD prescribing in the primary care setting in South Carolina.

The relationship between older cancer survivors’ reports of depression, anxiety and pain to health providers’ findings and mortality

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8597-8597
Author(s):  
P. H. Seo ◽  
R. Sloane ◽  
S. S. Ingram ◽  
D. Misra ◽  
E. C. Clipp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Pain Anxiety

8597 Background: Older cancer survivors may experience psychological distress due to their cancer experience and aging health. This study aimed to compare primary care and specialty providers’ inquiries of pain, depression and anxiety to older cancer survivors’ questionnaire responses. Methods: 153 patients seen in oncology clinics at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Durham, NC) from November 1999 until April 2000 completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and a pain thermometer questionnaire. Blinded chart review examined health provider inquiries of pain, anxiety and depression. Cox proportional hazards survival analyses were performed on subjective pain, anxiety and depression with comorbidities and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) added in controlled models. Results: Patients were on average aged 68, had 5.4 comorbidities, 87.4% KPS, and were 3.1 years from a cancer diagnosis. Health providers missed 17 of 94 patients with significant levels of self-reported pain (sensitivity 0.82). Although 28 (20.6%) and 33 (25.8%) patients screened positively for depression and anxiety respectively, providers asked 7 patients about anxiety (sensitivity 0.15) and 16 patients about depression (sensitivity 0.25). The overall three year mortality was 37.9%. Pain was not associated with mortality. Patients screening for depression [HR 2.03 (95% CI: 1.03, 4.01)] and anxiety [HR 2.02 (95% CI: 1.01, 4.04)] had lower 3 year survival. KPS and comorbidities diminished these effects. Conclusions: In older cancer survivors, anxiety and depression may have an association with mortality. To improve detection, oncology and primary care providers should routinely inquire about mood and aim to intervene with pharmacologic or supportive treatments. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Cancer survivorship algorithms as clinical tools for primary care providers.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 100-100
Author(s):  
Guadalupe R. Palos ◽  
Katherine Ramsey Gilmore ◽  
Paula A. Lewis-Patterson ◽  
Maria Alma Rodriguez
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Survivorship ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Coordinated Care ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
The Impact

100 Background: Clinical decision tools (CDTs) such as survivorship algorithms may be valuable resources for primary care providers who provide post-treatment care for cancer survivors. Our objective was to assess providers’ perceptions, adoption, and satisfaction with clinical practice algorithms tailored to site-specific cancer survivorship clinics. Methods: Eligible providers were those assigned to one of 9 site-specific survivorship clinics, (breast, colorectal, genitourinary, gynecology, head and neck, lymphoma, melanoma, stem cell transplant, and thyroid). Potential respondents were invited to participate by emails. Voluntary return of the survey indicated a provider’s informed consent. Providers had the choice to participate by clicking on a link embedded in an email. Once the link was activated, the user was taken to a 10-item survey with questions asking about the usability, awareness, and satisfaction with the algorithms specific to their clinic. Descriptive statistics (i.e. frequencies and percentages) were used to summarize the responses. Results: Of 35 providers assigned in the survivorship clinics, 18 responded resulting in a 51% response rate. The majority of respondents (94.4%) were aware of the survivorship algorithms specific to their clinic. Over 75% reported using the algorithms occasionally (16.7%), frequently (33%) and always (33.3%). The major barrier to using the algorithms was a lack of awareness on to access the algorithms. Over half of the providers (55.6%) preferred using the digital versions of the algorithms. 68% strongly agreed the algorithms were practical to use and implement in their clinical setting. The majority of providers’ reported being satisfied (62.5%) or very satisfied (25.0%) with the algorithms tailored to their site specific clinic. Conclusions: Survivorship practice algorithms were perceived as useful clinical resources to deliver coordinated care to cancer survivors with diverse cancer diagnoses. Future work is needed to determine the impact of the algorithms on providers’ practice with cancer survivors.

The role of annual personal health visits (APHV) on patients' with cancer knowledge and perceptions of the harms of continued smoking.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 152-152
Author(s):  
Delaram Farzanfar ◽  
Lin Lu ◽  
Jie Su ◽  
Devon Alton ◽  
Rahul Mohan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increase Risk

152 Background: With improvements in cancer detection and therapies, important secondary prevention measures in survivorship include smoking cessation. Primary care providers have an opportunity to discuss these measures with cancer survivors at APHV. We evaluated whether having a recent APHV is associated with cancer patients’ awareness and perceptions of the harms of continued smoking. Methods: Cancer survivors were surveyed from April 2014 to May 2016 with respect to their smoking history, knowledge and perceptions of the harms of continued smoking along with the date of their most recent APHV (term changed from annual health physical examination in 2013). Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed the association of having an APHV with knowledge and perceptions of the harms of continued smoking. Results: Of 985 cancer patients, 23% smoked at diagnosis; 34% quit > 1 year prior to diagnosis; 55% had tobacco-related cancers; 77% received curative therapy. From a knowledge viewpoint, over 52% reported being unaware that smoking negatively impacts cancer outcomes; despite this, most perceived smoking to negatively influence quality of life (75%), survival (76%), and fatigue (73%). Within the last year, 48% had an APHV, while 84% had an APHV at any time in the past; 18 (2%) reported not having a family doctor. Patients who had an APHV in the last year were more likely to be aware that continued smoking can increase risk of death (adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.49, 95% CI [1.13-1.96], P=0.004), and more likely to perceive smoking to negatively impact quality of life (aOR=1.37 [0.94-1.99], P=0.10), survival (aOR=1.60 [0.95-2.71], P=0.08), and fatigue (aOR=1.63 [1.11-2.39], P=0.01). Those ever having an APHV were more likely aware that smoking can increase risk of death (aOR=1.61 [1.07-2.43], P=0.02) and second primaries (aOR=1.53 [1.02-2.33], P=0.04). Conclusions: Having a recent APHV was associated with improved awareness and perceptions of the harms of continued smoking, but it is unclear whether this is related to provider counseling or a healthy bias effect. APHV may be an appropriate time for primary care providers to treat tobacco addiction in their cancer survivors.

Factors influencing the use of electronic health record systems to provide follow-up care to cancer survivors.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 182-182
Author(s):  
Guadalupe R. Palos ◽  
Maria Alma Rodriguez ◽  
Paula A. Lewis-Patterson ◽  
Rachel Harris ◽  
Lewis E. Foxhall
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Care Plans ◽  
Electronic Health

182 Background: One of the expected benefits of electronic health records (EHRs) is their interoperability to remotely access and exchange clinical information across systems and clinicians. Cancer survivors’ treatment summaries (TSs) and care plans (CPs) are documents that can be electronically transferred from oncologists to primary care providers. We conducted a needs assessment to identify factors which influenced EHRs in meeting these expectations in rural and underserved primary care settings. Methods: Clinicians from 2 family practice health care systems, located in central and northeast Texas were surveyed. REDCap, a web-based system, was used to develop, manage, and distribute the survey to a convenience sample of clinical staff from both settings. Survey questions focused on respondents’ demographic and clinical practice characteristics, current experience with TSs and CPs, and type of EHR used. Results: A total of 26 surveys were included in this analysis. Respondents were primarily physicians (73%). Overall 61.5% reported that ≤ 25% of their patients were diagnosed with cancer or currently had cancer. A patient’s self-report was the primary method used by majority of respondents to determine if a patient had a history of cancer. 80.8% indicated they would be interested in learning more about the use and development of TSs and CPs. Barriers reported towards the use of EHRs to deliver TSs and CPs included: EHRs interference with workflow (60%); limited knowledge on how to develop TSs and CPs (48%), inadequate access to IT resources (48%), and inefficient EHR systems (44%). In these settings, EHRs used were: Epic (61.6%), Aria (30.8%), and Medit (7.7%). Respondents’ comments on EHRs weaknesses included: “the two systems…do not completely communicate with each other” or “no place where a cancer treatment summary or survivorship plan is documented”. Conclusions: Primary care providers identified limitations in EHR operability as a major barrier to retrieving health information required for TSs and CPs. Clinicians in rural or underserved regions may benefit from education and retraining in EHR systems.

scholarly journals Shared care involving cancer specialists and primary care providers - What do cancer survivors want?

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 1081-1087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Lawn ◽  
Julia Fallon-Ferguson ◽  
Bogda Koczwara
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Shared Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cancer Specialists

scholarly journals Reducing Alcohol and Opioid Use Among Youth in Rural Counties: An Innovative Training Protocol for Primary Health Care Providers and School Personnel

10.2196/21015 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e21015
Author(s):  
Erica Francis ◽  
Kara Shifler Bowers ◽  
Glenn Buchberger ◽  
Sheryl Ryan ◽  
William Milchak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Substance Use Disorders ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
School Nurses ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Opioid Use

Background Given that youth alcohol use is more common in rural communities, such communities can play a key role in preventing alcohol use among adolescents. Guidelines recommend primary care providers incorporate screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) into routine care. Objective The aim is to train primary care providers and school nurses within a rural 10-county catchment area in Pennsylvania to use SBIRT and facilitate collaboration with community organizations to better coordinate substance use prevention efforts. Methods To build capacity to address underage drinking and opioid use among youth aged 9-20 years, this project uses telehealth, specifically Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes), to train primary care providers and school nurses to address substance use with SBIRT. Our project will provide 120 primary care providers and allied health professionals as well as 20 school nurses with SBIRT training. Community-based providers will participate in weekly virtual ECHO sessions with a multidisciplinary team from Penn State College of Medicine that will provide SBIRT training and facilitate case discussions among participants. Results To date, we have launched one SBIRT ECHO project with school personnel, enrolling 34 participants. ECHO participants are from both rural (n=17) and urban (n=17) counties and include school nurses (n=15), school counselors (n=8), teachers (n=5), administrators (n=3), and social workers (n=3). Before the study began, only 2/13 (15.5%) of schools were screening for alcohol use. Conclusions This project teaches primary care clinics and schools to use SBIRT to prevent the onset and reduce the progression of substance use disorders, reduce problems associated with substance use disorders, and strengthen communities’ prevention capacity. Ours is an innovative model to improve rural adolescent health by reducing alcohol and opioid use. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/21015

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document