Datasets:

minh21

/

cpgQA-v1.0-unique-context-test-10-percent-validation-10-percent

like 0

Algorithm

What are the benefits of continuing opioid therapy?

modest short-term improvement in pain, possible short-term improvement in function

Factors requiring immediate attention and possible discontinuation are as follows: untreated SUD, unstable mental health disorder, medical condition that acutely increases opioid risks (e.g., compromised or worsening cognitive or cardiopulmonary status), other factors that acutely increase risk of overdose (recent overdose, current sedation, recent motor vehicle accident), acutely elevated suicide risk. The risks of continuing opioid therapy are as follows: increase in all-cause mortality, increase risk of unintentional overdose death, increase risk of developing OUD, risk of developing or worsening - depression, falls, fractures, sleep disordered breathing, worsening pain, motor vehicle accidents hypogonadism, prolonged pain, nausea, constipation, dry mouth, sedation, cognitive dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, reduction in function, reduction in quality of life. The benefits of continuing opioid therapy are modest short-term improvement in pain, possible short-term improvement in function. Some talking points for education and re-education for patients currently on OT are “Doctors used to think that opioids were safe and effective when used for long periods of time to treat chronic pain.”, “New information has taught us that long-term opioid use can lead to multiple problems including loss of pain relieving effects, increased pain, unintentional death, OUD, and problems with sleep, mood, hormonal dysfunction, and immune dysfunction,”, “We now know that the best treatments for chronic pain are not opioids. The best treatments for chronic pain are non-drug treatments such as psychological therapies and rehabilitation therapies and non-opioid medications.”.

Algorithm

What are some talking points for educating/re-educating the patients currently on OT?

“Doctors used to think that opioids were safe and effective when used for long periods of time to treat chronic pain.”, “New information has taught us that long-term opioid use can lead to multiple problems including loss of pain relieving effects, increased pain, unintentional death, OUD, and problems with sleep, mood, hormonal dysfunction, and immune dysfunction,”, “We now know that the best treatments for chronic pain are not opioids. The best treatments for chronic pain are non-drug treatments such as psychological therapies and rehabilitation therapies and non-opioid medications.”

Factors requiring immediate attention and possible discontinuation are as follows: untreated SUD, unstable mental health disorder, medical condition that acutely increases opioid risks (e.g., compromised or worsening cognitive or cardiopulmonary status), other factors that acutely increase risk of overdose (recent overdose, current sedation, recent motor vehicle accident), acutely elevated suicide risk. The risks of continuing opioid therapy are as follows: increase in all-cause mortality, increase risk of unintentional overdose death, increase risk of developing OUD, risk of developing or worsening - depression, falls, fractures, sleep disordered breathing, worsening pain, motor vehicle accidents hypogonadism, prolonged pain, nausea, constipation, dry mouth, sedation, cognitive dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, reduction in function, reduction in quality of life. The benefits of continuing opioid therapy are modest short-term improvement in pain, possible short-term improvement in function. Some talking points for education and re-education for patients currently on OT are “Doctors used to think that opioids were safe and effective when used for long periods of time to treat chronic pain.”, “New information has taught us that long-term opioid use can lead to multiple problems including loss of pain relieving effects, increased pain, unintentional death, OUD, and problems with sleep, mood, hormonal dysfunction, and immune dysfunction,”, “We now know that the best treatments for chronic pain are not opioids. The best treatments for chronic pain are non-drug treatments such as psychological therapies and rehabilitation therapies and non-opioid medications.”.

Background information

What is a national public health problem as outlined in the 2011 study by the National Academy of Medicine?

Chronic pain

Chronic pain is a national public health problem as outlined in the 2011 study by the National Academy of Medicine (previously the Institute of Medicine [IOM]). At least 100 million Americans suffer from some form of chronic pain. Until recently, the treatment of chronic pain with opioids was increasing at an alarming rate. The increase in prescriptions of these medications has been accompanied by an epidemic of opioid-related adverse events.

Background information

What was the National Academy of Medicine formerly known as?

the Institute of Medicine [IOM]

Chronic pain is a national public health problem as outlined in the 2011 study by the National Academy of Medicine (previously the Institute of Medicine [IOM]). At least 100 million Americans suffer from some form of chronic pain. Until recently, the treatment of chronic pain with opioids was increasing at an alarming rate. The increase in prescriptions of these medications has been accompanied by an epidemic of opioid-related adverse events.

Background information

How many Americans suffer from some form of chronic pain?

At least 100 million

Chronic pain is a national public health problem as outlined in the 2011 study by the National Academy of Medicine (previously the Institute of Medicine [IOM]). At least 100 million Americans suffer from some form of chronic pain. Until recently, the treatment of chronic pain with opioids was increasing at an alarming rate. The increase in prescriptions of these medications has been accompanied by an epidemic of opioid-related adverse events.

Background information

What was increasing at an alarming rate until recently?

the treatment of chronic pain with opioids

Chronic pain is a national public health problem as outlined in the 2011 study by the National Academy of Medicine (previously the Institute of Medicine [IOM]). At least 100 million Americans suffer from some form of chronic pain. Until recently, the treatment of chronic pain with opioids was increasing at an alarming rate. The increase in prescriptions of these medications has been accompanied by an epidemic of opioid-related adverse events.

Background information

What was accompanying the increase in prescriptions of opioid medications?

an epidemic of opioid-related adverse events

Chronic pain is a national public health problem as outlined in the 2011 study by the National Academy of Medicine (previously the Institute of Medicine [IOM]). At least 100 million Americans suffer from some form of chronic pain. Until recently, the treatment of chronic pain with opioids was increasing at an alarming rate. The increase in prescriptions of these medications has been accompanied by an epidemic of opioid-related adverse events.

Background information

From 2000 through 2010, what was the increment of the proportion of pain visits during which opioid was prescribed?

from 11.3% to 19.6%

From 2000 through 2010, the proportion of pain visits during which opioid and non-opioid pharmacologic therapies were prescribed increased from 11.3% to 19.6% and from 26% to 29%, respectively. In 2012, for every 100 persons in the United States (U.S.), 82.5 opioid prescriptions and 37.6 benzodiazepine prescriptions were written by healthcare providers. In the emergency department, at least 17% of discharges included prescriptions for opioids.

Background information

From 2000 through 2010, what was the increment of the proportion of pain visits during which non-opioid pharmacologic therapies were prescribed?

from 26% to 29%

From 2000 through 2010, the proportion of pain visits during which opioid and non-opioid pharmacologic therapies were prescribed increased from 11.3% to 19.6% and from 26% to 29%, respectively. In 2012, for every 100 persons in the United States (U.S.), 82.5 opioid prescriptions and 37.6 benzodiazepine prescriptions were written by healthcare providers. In the emergency department, at least 17% of discharges included prescriptions for opioids.

Background information

In 2012, how many opioid prescriptions were written by healthcare providers for every 100 persons in the U.S.?

82.5

From 2000 through 2010, the proportion of pain visits during which opioid and non-opioid pharmacologic therapies were prescribed increased from 11.3% to 19.6% and from 26% to 29%, respectively. In 2012, for every 100 persons in the United States (U.S.), 82.5 opioid prescriptions and 37.6 benzodiazepine prescriptions were written by healthcare providers. In the emergency department, at least 17% of discharges included prescriptions for opioids.

Background information

In 2012, how many benzodiazepine prescriptions were written by healthcare providers for every 100 persons in the U.S.?

37.6

From 2000 through 2010, the proportion of pain visits during which opioid and non-opioid pharmacologic therapies were prescribed increased from 11.3% to 19.6% and from 26% to 29%, respectively. In 2012, for every 100 persons in the United States (U.S.), 82.5 opioid prescriptions and 37.6 benzodiazepine prescriptions were written by healthcare providers. In the emergency department, at least 17% of discharges included prescriptions for opioids.

Background information

How many discharges in the emergency department included prescriptions for opioids?

at least 17%

From 2000 through 2010, the proportion of pain visits during which opioid and non-opioid pharmacologic therapies were prescribed increased from 11.3% to 19.6% and from 26% to 29%, respectively. In 2012, for every 100 persons in the United States (U.S.), 82.5 opioid prescriptions and 37.6 benzodiazepine prescriptions were written by healthcare providers. In the emergency department, at least 17% of discharges included prescriptions for opioids.

Background information

From 1999 to 2008, what is increasing in parallel with the increment of opioid prescribing?

morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

What was the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S. in 2009?

drug overdose

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

What was the statistics of the events related to OUD or prescription drug overdose in 2014?

1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

How many Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers in 2014?

1.9 million

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

How many Americans died as a result of a prescription drug overdose in 2014?

18,893

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

What kind of increase has there been in the absolute number of deaths associated with the use of opioids since 2000?

a four-fold increase

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

What kind of increase has there been in the absolute number of deaths associated with the use of opioids between 2013 and 2014 alone?

14% increase

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

As found from a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain and their family members, how many patients reported that they thought they were addicted/dependent on opioid pain medication?

34%

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

As found from a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain and their family members, how many patients reported that they used the medication for fun or to get high?

34%

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

As found from a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain and their family members, how many patients reported that they used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress?

22%

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

What was the outcome of the survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain and their family members?

34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

What is CNCP?

chronic non-cancer pain

The increase in opioid prescribing is matched by a parallel increase in morbidity, mortality, opioid-related overdose death rates, and substance use disorders (SUD) treatment admissions from 1999 to 2008. In 2009, drug overdose became the leading cause of injury-related death in the U.S., surpassing deaths from traffic accidents. In 2014, 1.9 million Americans were affected by an OUD related to non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, and in the same year, 18,893 individuals died as a result of a prescription drug overdose. There has been a four-fold increase in the absolute number of deaths associated with use of opioids since 2000, and a 14% increase between 2013 and 2014 alone. In a survey of patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and their family members, 34% of patients reported that they thought they were “addicted” or “dependent” on opioid pain medication, 34% said that they used the medication for “fun” or to “get high,” while 22% used the medication to relieve day-to-day stress.

Background information

Between 2000 and 2013, what increased along with the increment of prescription opioid use?

the rate of heroin overdose deaths

Concurrent with the increase in prescription opioid use, the rate of heroin overdose deaths increased nearly four-fold between 2000 and 2013. According to a survey of patients entering SUD treatment for heroin use, the prescription opioid epidemic has resulted in a marked shift in how and which opioids are abused. In the 1960s, 80% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using heroin as their first opioid, while in the 2000s, 75% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using prescription opioids as their first opioid. This increase in the use of opioids, as well as associated morbidity, mortality, and other adverse outcomes, has called attention to the need for a paradigm shift in pain and in the way it is treated. Consult the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (VA/DoD SUD CPG) for further information.

Background information

How much did the rate of heroin overdose deaths increase between 2000 and 2013?

nearly four-fold

Concurrent with the increase in prescription opioid use, the rate of heroin overdose deaths increased nearly four-fold between 2000 and 2013. According to a survey of patients entering SUD treatment for heroin use, the prescription opioid epidemic has resulted in a marked shift in how and which opioids are abused. In the 1960s, 80% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using heroin as their first opioid, while in the 2000s, 75% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using prescription opioids as their first opioid. This increase in the use of opioids, as well as associated morbidity, mortality, and other adverse outcomes, has called attention to the need for a paradigm shift in pain and in the way it is treated. Consult the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (VA/DoD SUD CPG) for further information.

Background information

What percentage of people entering SUD treatment for heroin use started using heroin as their first opioid in the 1960s?

80%

Concurrent with the increase in prescription opioid use, the rate of heroin overdose deaths increased nearly four-fold between 2000 and 2013. According to a survey of patients entering SUD treatment for heroin use, the prescription opioid epidemic has resulted in a marked shift in how and which opioids are abused. In the 1960s, 80% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using heroin as their first opioid, while in the 2000s, 75% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using prescription opioids as their first opioid. This increase in the use of opioids, as well as associated morbidity, mortality, and other adverse outcomes, has called attention to the need for a paradigm shift in pain and in the way it is treated. Consult the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (VA/DoD SUD CPG) for further information.

Background information

What percentage of people entering SUD treatment for heroin use started using prescription opioids as their first opioid in the 2000s?

75%

Concurrent with the increase in prescription opioid use, the rate of heroin overdose deaths increased nearly four-fold between 2000 and 2013. According to a survey of patients entering SUD treatment for heroin use, the prescription opioid epidemic has resulted in a marked shift in how and which opioids are abused. In the 1960s, 80% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using heroin as their first opioid, while in the 2000s, 75% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using prescription opioids as their first opioid. This increase in the use of opioids, as well as associated morbidity, mortality, and other adverse outcomes, has called attention to the need for a paradigm shift in pain and in the way it is treated. Consult the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (VA/DoD SUD CPG) for further information.

Background information

What was the first opioid used by most of the people entering SUD treatment for heroin use in the 1960s?

heroin

Concurrent with the increase in prescription opioid use, the rate of heroin overdose deaths increased nearly four-fold between 2000 and 2013. According to a survey of patients entering SUD treatment for heroin use, the prescription opioid epidemic has resulted in a marked shift in how and which opioids are abused. In the 1960s, 80% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using heroin as their first opioid, while in the 2000s, 75% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using prescription opioids as their first opioid. This increase in the use of opioids, as well as associated morbidity, mortality, and other adverse outcomes, has called attention to the need for a paradigm shift in pain and in the way it is treated. Consult the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (VA/DoD SUD CPG) for further information.

Background information

What was the first opioid used by most of the people entering SUD treatment for heroin use in the 2000s?

prescription opioids

Concurrent with the increase in prescription opioid use, the rate of heroin overdose deaths increased nearly four-fold between 2000 and 2013. According to a survey of patients entering SUD treatment for heroin use, the prescription opioid epidemic has resulted in a marked shift in how and which opioids are abused. In the 1960s, 80% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using heroin as their first opioid, while in the 2000s, 75% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using prescription opioids as their first opioid. This increase in the use of opioids, as well as associated morbidity, mortality, and other adverse outcomes, has called attention to the need for a paradigm shift in pain and in the way it is treated. Consult the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (VA/DoD SUD CPG) for further information.

Background information

What called attention to the need for a paradigm shift in pain and its treatment protocols?

increase in the use of opioids, as well as associated morbidity, mortality, and other adverse outcomes

Concurrent with the increase in prescription opioid use, the rate of heroin overdose deaths increased nearly four-fold between 2000 and 2013. According to a survey of patients entering SUD treatment for heroin use, the prescription opioid epidemic has resulted in a marked shift in how and which opioids are abused. In the 1960s, 80% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using heroin as their first opioid, while in the 2000s, 75% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using prescription opioids as their first opioid. This increase in the use of opioids, as well as associated morbidity, mortality, and other adverse outcomes, has called attention to the need for a paradigm shift in pain and in the way it is treated. Consult the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (VA/DoD SUD CPG) for further information.

Background information

Where can further information on SUD treatment be found?

the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (VA/DoD SUD CPG)

Concurrent with the increase in prescription opioid use, the rate of heroin overdose deaths increased nearly four-fold between 2000 and 2013. According to a survey of patients entering SUD treatment for heroin use, the prescription opioid epidemic has resulted in a marked shift in how and which opioids are abused. In the 1960s, 80% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using heroin as their first opioid, while in the 2000s, 75% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using prescription opioids as their first opioid. This increase in the use of opioids, as well as associated morbidity, mortality, and other adverse outcomes, has called attention to the need for a paradigm shift in pain and in the way it is treated. Consult the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (VA/DoD SUD CPG) for further information.

Background information

What is VA/DoD SUD CPG?

VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders

Concurrent with the increase in prescription opioid use, the rate of heroin overdose deaths increased nearly four-fold between 2000 and 2013. According to a survey of patients entering SUD treatment for heroin use, the prescription opioid epidemic has resulted in a marked shift in how and which opioids are abused. In the 1960s, 80% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using heroin as their first opioid, while in the 2000s, 75% of people entering treatment for heroin use started using prescription opioids as their first opioid. This increase in the use of opioids, as well as associated morbidity, mortality, and other adverse outcomes, has called attention to the need for a paradigm shift in pain and in the way it is treated. Consult the VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Substance Use Disorders (VA/DoD SUD CPG) for further information.

Background information

In which way the U.S. is in the midst of cultural transformation?

in the way pain is viewed and treated

The U.S. is in the midst of a cultural transformation in the way pain is viewed and treated. The biomedical model of pain care, in which the pain experience is reduced to a pain generator and pain treatment is aimed at fixing or numbing pain with medications, interventions, or surgery, dominated the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s. As the cost, potential harm, and limited effectiveness of the approach in the biomedical model of pain care to chronic pain was becoming apparent, the National Academy of Medicine issued a call for the transformation of pain care to a biopsychosocial, multimodal, interdisciplinary model.

Background information

What is the trend in pain management and care in the U.S.?

The U.S. is in the midst of a cultural transformation in the way pain is viewed and treated

The U.S. is in the midst of a cultural transformation in the way pain is viewed and treated. The biomedical model of pain care, in which the pain experience is reduced to a pain generator and pain treatment is aimed at fixing or numbing pain with medications, interventions, or surgery, dominated the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s. As the cost, potential harm, and limited effectiveness of the approach in the biomedical model of pain care to chronic pain was becoming apparent, the National Academy of Medicine issued a call for the transformation of pain care to a biopsychosocial, multimodal, interdisciplinary model.

Background information

What happens in the biomedical model of pain care?

the pain experience is reduced to a pain generator and pain treatment is aimed at fixing or numbing pain with medications, interventions, or surgery

The U.S. is in the midst of a cultural transformation in the way pain is viewed and treated. The biomedical model of pain care, in which the pain experience is reduced to a pain generator and pain treatment is aimed at fixing or numbing pain with medications, interventions, or surgery, dominated the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s. As the cost, potential harm, and limited effectiveness of the approach in the biomedical model of pain care to chronic pain was becoming apparent, the National Academy of Medicine issued a call for the transformation of pain care to a biopsychosocial, multimodal, interdisciplinary model.

Background information

What is the aim of the pain treatment in the biomedical model of pain care?

fixing or numbing pain with medications, interventions, or surgery

The U.S. is in the midst of a cultural transformation in the way pain is viewed and treated. The biomedical model of pain care, in which the pain experience is reduced to a pain generator and pain treatment is aimed at fixing or numbing pain with medications, interventions, or surgery, dominated the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s. As the cost, potential harm, and limited effectiveness of the approach in the biomedical model of pain care to chronic pain was becoming apparent, the National Academy of Medicine issued a call for the transformation of pain care to a biopsychosocial, multimodal, interdisciplinary model.

Background information

Which was the dominating period of the biomedical model of pain care?

the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s

The U.S. is in the midst of a cultural transformation in the way pain is viewed and treated. The biomedical model of pain care, in which the pain experience is reduced to a pain generator and pain treatment is aimed at fixing or numbing pain with medications, interventions, or surgery, dominated the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s. As the cost, potential harm, and limited effectiveness of the approach in the biomedical model of pain care to chronic pain was becoming apparent, the National Academy of Medicine issued a call for the transformation of pain care to a biopsychosocial, multimodal, interdisciplinary model.

Background information

Why did the National Academy of Medicine issue a call for the transformation of pain care to a biopsychosocial, multimodal, interdisciplinary model?

As the cost, potential harm, and limited effectiveness of the approach in the biomedical model of pain care to chronic pain was becoming apparent

The U.S. is in the midst of a cultural transformation in the way pain is viewed and treated. The biomedical model of pain care, in which the pain experience is reduced to a pain generator and pain treatment is aimed at fixing or numbing pain with medications, interventions, or surgery, dominated the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s. As the cost, potential harm, and limited effectiveness of the approach in the biomedical model of pain care to chronic pain was becoming apparent, the National Academy of Medicine issued a call for the transformation of pain care to a biopsychosocial, multimodal, interdisciplinary model.

Background information

Which model was adopted after the biomedical model of pain care?

a biopsychosocial, multimodal, interdisciplinary model

The U.S. is in the midst of a cultural transformation in the way pain is viewed and treated. The biomedical model of pain care, in which the pain experience is reduced to a pain generator and pain treatment is aimed at fixing or numbing pain with medications, interventions, or surgery, dominated the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s. As the cost, potential harm, and limited effectiveness of the approach in the biomedical model of pain care to chronic pain was becoming apparent, the National Academy of Medicine issued a call for the transformation of pain care to a biopsychosocial, multimodal, interdisciplinary model.

Background information

What happened concurrently with the transformation in pain care?

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain has paralleled this transformation in pain care. Prior to the 1980s, OT was rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction. As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief, OT increasingly became a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain. Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain encompassed primary care providers and the public. The efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain. Chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s with significant numbers of patients in pain clinics receiving LOT. Despite the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy. However, as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated, a much more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain has emerged in the decade of the 2010s.

Background information

How was OT used prior to 1980s?

rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain has paralleled this transformation in pain care. Prior to the 1980s, OT was rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction. As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief, OT increasingly became a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain. Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain encompassed primary care providers and the public. The efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain. Chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s with significant numbers of patients in pain clinics receiving LOT. Despite the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy. However, as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated, a much more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain has emerged in the decade of the 2010s.

Background information

Name the concerning factors regarding the use of OT prior to 1980s.

tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain has paralleled this transformation in pain care. Prior to the 1980s, OT was rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction. As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief, OT increasingly became a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain. Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain encompassed primary care providers and the public. The efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain. Chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s with significant numbers of patients in pain clinics receiving LOT. Despite the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy. However, as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated, a much more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain has emerged in the decade of the 2010s.

Background information

How did OT increasingly become a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain?

As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain has paralleled this transformation in pain care. Prior to the 1980s, OT was rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction. As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief, OT increasingly became a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain. Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain encompassed primary care providers and the public. The efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain. Chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s with significant numbers of patients in pain clinics receiving LOT. Despite the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy. However, as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated, a much more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain has emerged in the decade of the 2010s.

Background information

Which efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain?

Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain has paralleled this transformation in pain care. Prior to the 1980s, OT was rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction. As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief, OT increasingly became a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain. Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain encompassed primary care providers and the public. The efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain. Chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s with significant numbers of patients in pain clinics receiving LOT. Despite the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy. However, as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated, a much more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain has emerged in the decade of the 2010s.

Background information

Which became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s?

Chronic pain management

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain has paralleled this transformation in pain care. Prior to the 1980s, OT was rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction. As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief, OT increasingly became a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain. Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain encompassed primary care providers and the public. The efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain. Chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s with significant numbers of patients in pain clinics receiving LOT. Despite the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy. However, as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated, a much more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain has emerged in the decade of the 2010s.

Background information

When did chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT?

in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain has paralleled this transformation in pain care. Prior to the 1980s, OT was rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction. As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief, OT increasingly became a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain. Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain encompassed primary care providers and the public. The efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain. Chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s with significant numbers of patients in pain clinics receiving LOT. Despite the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy. However, as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated, a much more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain has emerged in the decade of the 2010s.

Background information

What was the state of long-term safety or efficacy data when OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy?

absence

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain has paralleled this transformation in pain care. Prior to the 1980s, OT was rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction. As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief, OT increasingly became a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain. Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain encompassed primary care providers and the public. The efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain. Chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s with significant numbers of patients in pain clinics receiving LOT. Despite the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy. However, as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated, a much more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain has emerged in the decade of the 2010s.

Background information

When did a more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain emerge?

in the decade of the 2010s

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain has paralleled this transformation in pain care. Prior to the 1980s, OT was rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction. As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief, OT increasingly became a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain. Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain encompassed primary care providers and the public. The efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain. Chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s with significant numbers of patients in pain clinics receiving LOT. Despite the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy. However, as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated, a much more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain has emerged in the decade of the 2010s.

Background information

How did a more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain emerge?

as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated

A paradigm shift in the use of OT for chronic non-terminal pain has paralleled this transformation in pain care. Prior to the 1980s, OT was rarely used outside of severe acute injury or post-surgical pain, primarily due to concern for tolerance, physical dependence, and addiction. As the hospice and palliative care movement began defining end-of-life care in the U.S. during the 1980s and emphasizing the importance of pain relief, OT increasingly became a mainstay for cancer and end-of-life pain. Efforts to destigmatize the use of prescription opioids for chronic non-terminal pain encompassed primary care providers and the public. The efforts led to an unprecedented increase in opioid prescribing for chronic non-terminal pain. Chronic pain management became synonymous with LOT in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s with significant numbers of patients in pain clinics receiving LOT. Despite the absence of long-term safety or efficacy data, OT for chronic non-terminal pain became a mainstay of therapy. However, as observational and epidemiologic data of harm from LOT accumulated, a much more cautious approach to OT for chronic non-terminal pain has emerged in the decade of the 2010s.

Background information

What warranted a cautious approach to LOT prioritizing safety?

The accumulation of evidence of harms and the absence of evidence of long-term benefits

The accumulation of evidence of harms and the absence of evidence of long-term benefits has warranted a newly cautious approach to LOT that prioritizes safety. This approach coupled with the evidence of both the safety and efficacy for non-pharmacologic and non-opioid pharmacologic pain therapies has led to the current transformation in the way in which pain is viewed and treated. The biopsychosocial model of pain recognizes pain as a complex multidimensional experience that requires multimodal and integrated care approaches. Within this context, non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications are the preferred treatments for chronic non-terminal pain. OT has a limited role, primarily in the treatment of severe acute pain, post-operative pain, and end-of-life pain.

Background information

What was coupled with the newly cautious approach to LOT?

the evidence of both the safety and efficacy for non-pharmacologic and non-opioid pharmacologic pain therapies

The accumulation of evidence of harms and the absence of evidence of long-term benefits has warranted a newly cautious approach to LOT that prioritizes safety. This approach coupled with the evidence of both the safety and efficacy for non-pharmacologic and non-opioid pharmacologic pain therapies has led to the current transformation in the way in which pain is viewed and treated. The biopsychosocial model of pain recognizes pain as a complex multidimensional experience that requires multimodal and integrated care approaches. Within this context, non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications are the preferred treatments for chronic non-terminal pain. OT has a limited role, primarily in the treatment of severe acute pain, post-operative pain, and end-of-life pain.

Background information

How is pain recognized by the biopsychosocial model of pain?

as a complex multidimensional experience that requires multimodal and integrated care approaches

The accumulation of evidence of harms and the absence of evidence of long-term benefits has warranted a newly cautious approach to LOT that prioritizes safety. This approach coupled with the evidence of both the safety and efficacy for non-pharmacologic and non-opioid pharmacologic pain therapies has led to the current transformation in the way in which pain is viewed and treated. The biopsychosocial model of pain recognizes pain as a complex multidimensional experience that requires multimodal and integrated care approaches. Within this context, non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications are the preferred treatments for chronic non-terminal pain. OT has a limited role, primarily in the treatment of severe acute pain, post-operative pain, and end-of-life pain.

Background information

What are the preferred treatments for chronic non-terminal pain?

non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications

The accumulation of evidence of harms and the absence of evidence of long-term benefits has warranted a newly cautious approach to LOT that prioritizes safety. This approach coupled with the evidence of both the safety and efficacy for non-pharmacologic and non-opioid pharmacologic pain therapies has led to the current transformation in the way in which pain is viewed and treated. The biopsychosocial model of pain recognizes pain as a complex multidimensional experience that requires multimodal and integrated care approaches. Within this context, non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications are the preferred treatments for chronic non-terminal pain. OT has a limited role, primarily in the treatment of severe acute pain, post-operative pain, and end-of-life pain.

Background information

Where does OT have a limited role?

primarily in the treatment of severe acute pain, post-operative pain, and end-of-life pain

The accumulation of evidence of harms and the absence of evidence of long-term benefits has warranted a newly cautious approach to LOT that prioritizes safety. This approach coupled with the evidence of both the safety and efficacy for non-pharmacologic and non-opioid pharmacologic pain therapies has led to the current transformation in the way in which pain is viewed and treated. The biopsychosocial model of pain recognizes pain as a complex multidimensional experience that requires multimodal and integrated care approaches. Within this context, non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications are the preferred treatments for chronic non-terminal pain. OT has a limited role, primarily in the treatment of severe acute pain, post-operative pain, and end-of-life pain.

Background information

What is the role of OT in the treatment of severe acute pain, post-operative pain, and end-of-life pain?

limited

The accumulation of evidence of harms and the absence of evidence of long-term benefits has warranted a newly cautious approach to LOT that prioritizes safety. This approach coupled with the evidence of both the safety and efficacy for non-pharmacologic and non-opioid pharmacologic pain therapies has led to the current transformation in the way in which pain is viewed and treated. The biopsychosocial model of pain recognizes pain as a complex multidimensional experience that requires multimodal and integrated care approaches. Within this context, non-pharmacologic treatments and non-opioid medications are the preferred treatments for chronic non-terminal pain. OT has a limited role, primarily in the treatment of severe acute pain, post-operative pain, and end-of-life pain.

Background information

What has accumulated growing attention from federal and local officials as well as other policymakers?

The increasing use of opioids, as well as the accompanying rise in morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use

The increasing use of opioids, as well as the accompanying rise in morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use, has garnered increasing attention from federal and local officials as well as other policy makers. This public health issue, which has been labeled an epidemic, became a focus of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy in 2010 and has since remained a focus. Two main goals introduced in the 2010 strategy included curtailing illicit drug consumption in America and improving the health and safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse. The 2015 strategy, and an accompanying presidential memorandum on preventing prescription drug abuse and heroin use, released in October 2015, encouraged the improvement of health and safety using evidence-based methods by calling for change in a number of key areas including preventing drug use in communities, seeking early intervention opportunities, and integrating SUD treatment and supporting recovery.

Background information

Which health issue has been identified as an epidemic?

The increasing use of opioids

The increasing use of opioids, as well as the accompanying rise in morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use, has garnered increasing attention from federal and local officials as well as other policy makers. This public health issue, which has been labeled an epidemic, became a focus of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy in 2010 and has since remained a focus. Two main goals introduced in the 2010 strategy included curtailing illicit drug consumption in America and improving the health and safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse. The 2015 strategy, and an accompanying presidential memorandum on preventing prescription drug abuse and heroin use, released in October 2015, encouraged the improvement of health and safety using evidence-based methods by calling for change in a number of key areas including preventing drug use in communities, seeking early intervention opportunities, and integrating SUD treatment and supporting recovery.

Background information

In 2010, what was the focus of National Drug Control Strategy?

The increasing use of opioids

The increasing use of opioids, as well as the accompanying rise in morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use, has garnered increasing attention from federal and local officials as well as other policy makers. This public health issue, which has been labeled an epidemic, became a focus of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy in 2010 and has since remained a focus. Two main goals introduced in the 2010 strategy included curtailing illicit drug consumption in America and improving the health and safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse. The 2015 strategy, and an accompanying presidential memorandum on preventing prescription drug abuse and heroin use, released in October 2015, encouraged the improvement of health and safety using evidence-based methods by calling for change in a number of key areas including preventing drug use in communities, seeking early intervention opportunities, and integrating SUD treatment and supporting recovery.

Background information

What were the goals of President’s National Drug Control strategy in 2010?

curtailing illicit drug consumption in America and improving the health and safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse

The increasing use of opioids, as well as the accompanying rise in morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use, has garnered increasing attention from federal and local officials as well as other policy makers. This public health issue, which has been labeled an epidemic, became a focus of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy in 2010 and has since remained a focus. Two main goals introduced in the 2010 strategy included curtailing illicit drug consumption in America and improving the health and safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse. The 2015 strategy, and an accompanying presidential memorandum on preventing prescription drug abuse and heroin use, released in October 2015, encouraged the improvement of health and safety using evidence-based methods by calling for change in a number of key areas including preventing drug use in communities, seeking early intervention opportunities, and integrating SUD treatment and supporting recovery.

Background information

When was the 2015 National Drug Control strategy released?

October 2015

The increasing use of opioids, as well as the accompanying rise in morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use, has garnered increasing attention from federal and local officials as well as other policy makers. This public health issue, which has been labeled an epidemic, became a focus of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy in 2010 and has since remained a focus. Two main goals introduced in the 2010 strategy included curtailing illicit drug consumption in America and improving the health and safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse. The 2015 strategy, and an accompanying presidential memorandum on preventing prescription drug abuse and heroin use, released in October 2015, encouraged the improvement of health and safety using evidence-based methods by calling for change in a number of key areas including preventing drug use in communities, seeking early intervention opportunities, and integrating SUD treatment and supporting recovery.

Background information

What accompanied the 2015 National Drug Control strategy?

presidential memorandum on preventing prescription drug abuse and heroin use

The increasing use of opioids, as well as the accompanying rise in morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use, has garnered increasing attention from federal and local officials as well as other policy makers. This public health issue, which has been labeled an epidemic, became a focus of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy in 2010 and has since remained a focus. Two main goals introduced in the 2010 strategy included curtailing illicit drug consumption in America and improving the health and safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse. The 2015 strategy, and an accompanying presidential memorandum on preventing prescription drug abuse and heroin use, released in October 2015, encouraged the improvement of health and safety using evidence-based methods by calling for change in a number of key areas including preventing drug use in communities, seeking early intervention opportunities, and integrating SUD treatment and supporting recovery.

Background information

How did the 2015 National Drug Control strategy and an accompanying presidential memorandum encourage the improvement of health and safety using evidence-based methods regarding SUD treatments?

by calling for change in a number of key areas including preventing drug use in communities, seeking early intervention opportunities, and integrating SUD treatment and supporting recovery

The increasing use of opioids, as well as the accompanying rise in morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use, has garnered increasing attention from federal and local officials as well as other policy makers. This public health issue, which has been labeled an epidemic, became a focus of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy in 2010 and has since remained a focus. Two main goals introduced in the 2010 strategy included curtailing illicit drug consumption in America and improving the health and safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse. The 2015 strategy, and an accompanying presidential memorandum on preventing prescription drug abuse and heroin use, released in October 2015, encouraged the improvement of health and safety using evidence-based methods by calling for change in a number of key areas including preventing drug use in communities, seeking early intervention opportunities, and integrating SUD treatment and supporting recovery.

Background information

How was the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee created?

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee was created to coordinate pain research efforts throughout federal government agencies. The Committee was tasked with summarizing advances in pain care research, identifying gaps in research, and developing recommendations regarding ways to minimize duplicative efforts, disseminate pain care information, and expand public/private research partnerships and collaborations. The Committee published the National Pain Strategy in March 2016 in response to the call from the National Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of pain as a significant public health issue in the U.S. The strategy made recommendations in a number of areas including prevention and care, professional education and training, and population research. The plan is aimed at decreasing the prevalence of all types of pain (acute and chronic) in the U.S., as well as the disability and morbidity associated with pain.

Background information

What was the purpose of Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee?

coordinate pain research efforts throughout federal government agencies

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee was created to coordinate pain research efforts throughout federal government agencies. The Committee was tasked with summarizing advances in pain care research, identifying gaps in research, and developing recommendations regarding ways to minimize duplicative efforts, disseminate pain care information, and expand public/private research partnerships and collaborations. The Committee published the National Pain Strategy in March 2016 in response to the call from the National Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of pain as a significant public health issue in the U.S. The strategy made recommendations in a number of areas including prevention and care, professional education and training, and population research. The plan is aimed at decreasing the prevalence of all types of pain (acute and chronic) in the U.S., as well as the disability and morbidity associated with pain.

Background information

When was the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee created?

March 2010

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee was created to coordinate pain research efforts throughout federal government agencies. The Committee was tasked with summarizing advances in pain care research, identifying gaps in research, and developing recommendations regarding ways to minimize duplicative efforts, disseminate pain care information, and expand public/private research partnerships and collaborations. The Committee published the National Pain Strategy in March 2016 in response to the call from the National Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of pain as a significant public health issue in the U.S. The strategy made recommendations in a number of areas including prevention and care, professional education and training, and population research. The plan is aimed at decreasing the prevalence of all types of pain (acute and chronic) in the U.S., as well as the disability and morbidity associated with pain.

Background information

What was the tasks of Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee?

summarizing advances in pain care research, identifying gaps in research, and developing recommendations regarding ways to minimize duplicative efforts, disseminate pain care information, and expand public/private research partnerships and collaborations

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee was created to coordinate pain research efforts throughout federal government agencies. The Committee was tasked with summarizing advances in pain care research, identifying gaps in research, and developing recommendations regarding ways to minimize duplicative efforts, disseminate pain care information, and expand public/private research partnerships and collaborations. The Committee published the National Pain Strategy in March 2016 in response to the call from the National Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of pain as a significant public health issue in the U.S. The strategy made recommendations in a number of areas including prevention and care, professional education and training, and population research. The plan is aimed at decreasing the prevalence of all types of pain (acute and chronic) in the U.S., as well as the disability and morbidity associated with pain.

Background information

Who published the National Pain Strategy?

The Committee

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee was created to coordinate pain research efforts throughout federal government agencies. The Committee was tasked with summarizing advances in pain care research, identifying gaps in research, and developing recommendations regarding ways to minimize duplicative efforts, disseminate pain care information, and expand public/private research partnerships and collaborations. The Committee published the National Pain Strategy in March 2016 in response to the call from the National Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of pain as a significant public health issue in the U.S. The strategy made recommendations in a number of areas including prevention and care, professional education and training, and population research. The plan is aimed at decreasing the prevalence of all types of pain (acute and chronic) in the U.S., as well as the disability and morbidity associated with pain.

Background information

When was the National Pain Strategy published?

March 2016

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee was created to coordinate pain research efforts throughout federal government agencies. The Committee was tasked with summarizing advances in pain care research, identifying gaps in research, and developing recommendations regarding ways to minimize duplicative efforts, disseminate pain care information, and expand public/private research partnerships and collaborations. The Committee published the National Pain Strategy in March 2016 in response to the call from the National Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of pain as a significant public health issue in the U.S. The strategy made recommendations in a number of areas including prevention and care, professional education and training, and population research. The plan is aimed at decreasing the prevalence of all types of pain (acute and chronic) in the U.S., as well as the disability and morbidity associated with pain.

Background information

How was the National Pain Strategy published?

in response to the call from the National Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of pain as a significant public health issue in the U.S.

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee was created to coordinate pain research efforts throughout federal government agencies. The Committee was tasked with summarizing advances in pain care research, identifying gaps in research, and developing recommendations regarding ways to minimize duplicative efforts, disseminate pain care information, and expand public/private research partnerships and collaborations. The Committee published the National Pain Strategy in March 2016 in response to the call from the National Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of pain as a significant public health issue in the U.S. The strategy made recommendations in a number of areas including prevention and care, professional education and training, and population research. The plan is aimed at decreasing the prevalence of all types of pain (acute and chronic) in the U.S., as well as the disability and morbidity associated with pain.

Background information

In which areas the National Pain Strategy made recommendations?

prevention and care, professional education and training, and population research

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee was created to coordinate pain research efforts throughout federal government agencies. The Committee was tasked with summarizing advances in pain care research, identifying gaps in research, and developing recommendations regarding ways to minimize duplicative efforts, disseminate pain care information, and expand public/private research partnerships and collaborations. The Committee published the National Pain Strategy in March 2016 in response to the call from the National Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of pain as a significant public health issue in the U.S. The strategy made recommendations in a number of areas including prevention and care, professional education and training, and population research. The plan is aimed at decreasing the prevalence of all types of pain (acute and chronic) in the U.S., as well as the disability and morbidity associated with pain.

Background information

What was the aim of the National Pain Strategy?

decreasing the prevalence of all types of pain (acute and chronic) in the U.S., as well as the disability and morbidity associated with pain

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March 2010, the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee was created to coordinate pain research efforts throughout federal government agencies. The Committee was tasked with summarizing advances in pain care research, identifying gaps in research, and developing recommendations regarding ways to minimize duplicative efforts, disseminate pain care information, and expand public/private research partnerships and collaborations. The Committee published the National Pain Strategy in March 2016 in response to the call from the National Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of pain as a significant public health issue in the U.S. The strategy made recommendations in a number of areas including prevention and care, professional education and training, and population research. The plan is aimed at decreasing the prevalence of all types of pain (acute and chronic) in the U.S., as well as the disability and morbidity associated with pain.

Background information

Which government agencies launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics?

VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What is SAMHSA?

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

When did VA deploy the Opioid Safety Initiative requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks?

August 2013

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What was the aim of the Opioid Safety Initiative?

ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner.

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What is OSI?

Opioid Safety Initiative

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What is VISNs?

Veterans Integrated Service Networks

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

In which topics the goals of the OSI is related to?

increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What does the OSI use to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids?

Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What does the OSI use to identify providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved?

Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

Why does the OSI use Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record?

to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What does the OSI requirements include?

specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT)

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What was launched by the VA as part of the OSI?

the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What was the purpose of the OEND program?

implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What are the components of the OEND program?

education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose

Government agencies, including the VA, DoD, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), have also launched initiatives to improve the study and treatment of pain and adverse events associated with opioid analgesics such as OUD and overdose. By August 2013, the VA deployed the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) requirements to all Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) with the aim of ensuring opioids are used in a safe, effective, and judicious manner. The goals of the OSI related to such topics as increased education, monitoring, use of safe and effective prescribing and management methods, tool development, collaboration, and use of alternative pain treatment. The OSI uses the Veterans Health Administration (VHA’s) electronic health record to identify patients who may be high-risk for adverse outcomes with use of opioids and providers whose prescribing practices do not reflect best evidence so that patient care can be improved. The OSI requirements include specific indicators (e.g., the number of unique pharmacy patients dispensed an opioid, the unique patients on LOT who have received UDT). As part of the OSI, the VA launched the Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND) program, which was implemented as a risk mitigation strategy aimed at reducing deaths from opioid overdose. The program components included education and training regarding the following topics: opioid overdose prevention, recognition, and rescue response; risk mitigation strategies; and issuing naloxone kits, which can be used as an antidote to opioid overdose.

Background information

What is CARA?

the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act

On July 22, 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) was enacted with the aim of addressing the epidemic of overdoses from prescription opioids and other prescription drugs and heroin. While this act was primarily focused on opioid abuse treatment and prevention, it also gave specific instruction to the VA in regard to broad aspects of OT including consideration of the CDC guideline in revising the prior VA/DoD OT CPG and adopting it for the VA. There are, however, some important distinctions between the CDC guideline and the VA/DoD OT CPG.

Background information

When was CARA enacted?

July 22, 2016

On July 22, 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) was enacted with the aim of addressing the epidemic of overdoses from prescription opioids and other prescription drugs and heroin. While this act was primarily focused on opioid abuse treatment and prevention, it also gave specific instruction to the VA in regard to broad aspects of OT including consideration of the CDC guideline in revising the prior VA/DoD OT CPG and adopting it for the VA. There are, however, some important distinctions between the CDC guideline and the VA/DoD OT CPG.

Background information

What is the aim of CARA?

addressing the epidemic of overdoses from prescription opioids and other prescription drugs and heroin

On July 22, 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) was enacted with the aim of addressing the epidemic of overdoses from prescription opioids and other prescription drugs and heroin. While this act was primarily focused on opioid abuse treatment and prevention, it also gave specific instruction to the VA in regard to broad aspects of OT including consideration of the CDC guideline in revising the prior VA/DoD OT CPG and adopting it for the VA. There are, however, some important distinctions between the CDC guideline and the VA/DoD OT CPG.

Background information

What is the primary focus of the CARA?

opioid abuse treatment and prevention

On July 22, 2016, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) was enacted with the aim of addressing the epidemic of overdoses from prescription opioids and other prescription drugs and heroin. While this act was primarily focused on opioid abuse treatment and prevention, it also gave specific instruction to the VA in regard to broad aspects of OT including consideration of the CDC guideline in revising the prior VA/DoD OT CPG and adopting it for the VA. There are, however, some important distinctions between the CDC guideline and the VA/DoD OT CPG.

Background information

Who are the target population for the VA/DoD OT CPG?

Service Members, Veterans, and their families—that has unique characteristics and needs related to the military culture and communities to which they return

The VA/DoD OT CPG was developed with a specific patient population in mind—Service Members, Veterans, and their families—that has unique characteristics and needs related to the military culture and communities to which they return. Throughout the VA/DoD OT CPG, attention is paid to the characteristics and needs of these patients, particularly regarding specific risk factors such as risk for suicide, SUD, and other medical and mental health co-occurring conditions that may complicate the management of pain for these patients. Further, these recommendations were made keeping in mind the implications they would have within the VA/DoD healthcare settings, particularly regarding considerations such as resource use, accessibility, and equity related to each recommendation and the urgent need for rigorous attention to the balance of risks and benefits for patients within the VA/DoD specifically.

Background information

Throughout the VA/DoD OT CPG, particular attention is paid regarding which factors?

specific risk factors such as risk for suicide, SUD, and other medical and mental health co-occurring conditions that may complicate the management of pain for these patients

The VA/DoD OT CPG was developed with a specific patient population in mind—Service Members, Veterans, and their families—that has unique characteristics and needs related to the military culture and communities to which they return. Throughout the VA/DoD OT CPG, attention is paid to the characteristics and needs of these patients, particularly regarding specific risk factors such as risk for suicide, SUD, and other medical and mental health co-occurring conditions that may complicate the management of pain for these patients. Further, these recommendations were made keeping in mind the implications they would have within the VA/DoD healthcare settings, particularly regarding considerations such as resource use, accessibility, and equity related to each recommendation and the urgent need for rigorous attention to the balance of risks and benefits for patients within the VA/DoD specifically.

Background information

What was the considerations behind the recommendations made in the CPG?

the implications they would have within the VA/DoD healthcare settings, particularly regarding considerations such as resource use, accessibility, and equity related to each recommendation and the urgent need for rigorous attention to the balance of risks and benefits for patients within the VA/DoD specifically

The VA/DoD OT CPG was developed with a specific patient population in mind—Service Members, Veterans, and their families—that has unique characteristics and needs related to the military culture and communities to which they return. Throughout the VA/DoD OT CPG, attention is paid to the characteristics and needs of these patients, particularly regarding specific risk factors such as risk for suicide, SUD, and other medical and mental health co-occurring conditions that may complicate the management of pain for these patients. Further, these recommendations were made keeping in mind the implications they would have within the VA/DoD healthcare settings, particularly regarding considerations such as resource use, accessibility, and equity related to each recommendation and the urgent need for rigorous attention to the balance of risks and benefits for patients within the VA/DoD specifically.

Background information

Mention some differences in the methodology used between the development of the VA/DoD OT CPG and the CDC guideline.

Along with a clinical evidence review, during which the evidence was evaluated using GRADE, the CDC guideline developers also considered the findings of a contextual evidence review. Further, the CDC Core Expert Group, which consisted of subject matter experts, representatives of primary care professional societies and state agencies, and an expert in guideline methodology, reviewed recommendations drafted by the CDC and evaluated how the evidence was used in the development of the recommendations, rather than developing the recommendations themselves (as was the VA/DoD OT Work Group’s role in the development of the VA/DoD OT CPG). While experts provided feedback on the CDC recommendations and their development, the CDC determined the final recommendations. CDC also used a review process considering and incorporating feedback from federal partners (e.g., SAMHSA, VA, DoD), stakeholders (e.g., professional organizations, delivery systems, community organizations), and other constituents (e.g., clinicians, prospective patients).

There were also some differences in the methodology used between the development of the VA/DoD OT CPG and the CDC guideline. Along with a clinical evidence review, during which the evidence was evaluated using GRADE, the CDC guideline developers also considered the findings of a contextual evidence review. Further, the CDC Core Expert Group, which consisted of subject matter experts, representatives of primary care professional societies and state agencies, and an expert in guideline methodology, reviewed recommendations drafted by the CDC and evaluated how the evidence was used in the development of the recommendations, rather than developing the recommendations themselves (as was the VA/DoD OT Work Group’s role in the development of the VA/DoD OT CPG). While experts provided feedback on the CDC recommendations and their development, the CDC determined the final recommendations. CDC also used a review process considering and incorporating feedback from federal partners (e.g., SAMHSA, VA, DoD), stakeholders (e.g., professional organizations, delivery systems, community organizations), and other constituents (e.g., clinicians, prospective patients). The CDC guideline development process included notice in the Federal Register for a public review and comment period as well as peer review. Thus, the recommendations made in the CDC guideline, although similar to those made in this CPG, were likely based on a slightly different evidence base and revised based on the feedback of individuals who were considering a larger group of potential patients relative to the VA/DoD. Thus, while the VA/DoD OT Work Group was aware of the release of the CDC guideline and considered potential implications, the CDC guideline did not form the basis of the deliberations on the strength or direction of these recommendations. The Work Group followed the VA/DoD Guideline for Guidelines, a document that details the process by which VA/DoD guidelines will be developed, including the use of the GRADE methodology. As required by Congress in CARA, the Work Group reviewed and considered the CDC guideline and its inclusion in the VA/DoD OT CPG.

Background information

What did the CDC guideline development process include?

notice in the Federal Register for a public review and comment period as well as peer review

There were also some differences in the methodology used between the development of the VA/DoD OT CPG and the CDC guideline. Along with a clinical evidence review, during which the evidence was evaluated using GRADE, the CDC guideline developers also considered the findings of a contextual evidence review. Further, the CDC Core Expert Group, which consisted of subject matter experts, representatives of primary care professional societies and state agencies, and an expert in guideline methodology, reviewed recommendations drafted by the CDC and evaluated how the evidence was used in the development of the recommendations, rather than developing the recommendations themselves (as was the VA/DoD OT Work Group’s role in the development of the VA/DoD OT CPG). While experts provided feedback on the CDC recommendations and their development, the CDC determined the final recommendations. CDC also used a review process considering and incorporating feedback from federal partners (e.g., SAMHSA, VA, DoD), stakeholders (e.g., professional organizations, delivery systems, community organizations), and other constituents (e.g., clinicians, prospective patients). The CDC guideline development process included notice in the Federal Register for a public review and comment period as well as peer review. Thus, the recommendations made in the CDC guideline, although similar to those made in this CPG, were likely based on a slightly different evidence base and revised based on the feedback of individuals who were considering a larger group of potential patients relative to the VA/DoD. Thus, while the VA/DoD OT Work Group was aware of the release of the CDC guideline and considered potential implications, the CDC guideline did not form the basis of the deliberations on the strength or direction of these recommendations. The Work Group followed the VA/DoD Guideline for Guidelines, a document that details the process by which VA/DoD guidelines will be developed, including the use of the GRADE methodology. As required by Congress in CARA, the Work Group reviewed and considered the CDC guideline and its inclusion in the VA/DoD OT CPG.

Background information

What are differences in the recommendations between the CDC guideline and the CPG?

based on a slightly different evidence base and revised based on the feedback of individuals who were considering a larger group of potential patients relative to the VA/DoD

There were also some differences in the methodology used between the development of the VA/DoD OT CPG and the CDC guideline. Along with a clinical evidence review, during which the evidence was evaluated using GRADE, the CDC guideline developers also considered the findings of a contextual evidence review. Further, the CDC Core Expert Group, which consisted of subject matter experts, representatives of primary care professional societies and state agencies, and an expert in guideline methodology, reviewed recommendations drafted by the CDC and evaluated how the evidence was used in the development of the recommendations, rather than developing the recommendations themselves (as was the VA/DoD OT Work Group’s role in the development of the VA/DoD OT CPG). While experts provided feedback on the CDC recommendations and their development, the CDC determined the final recommendations. CDC also used a review process considering and incorporating feedback from federal partners (e.g., SAMHSA, VA, DoD), stakeholders (e.g., professional organizations, delivery systems, community organizations), and other constituents (e.g., clinicians, prospective patients). The CDC guideline development process included notice in the Federal Register for a public review and comment period as well as peer review. Thus, the recommendations made in the CDC guideline, although similar to those made in this CPG, were likely based on a slightly different evidence base and revised based on the feedback of individuals who were considering a larger group of potential patients relative to the VA/DoD. Thus, while the VA/DoD OT Work Group was aware of the release of the CDC guideline and considered potential implications, the CDC guideline did not form the basis of the deliberations on the strength or direction of these recommendations. The Work Group followed the VA/DoD Guideline for Guidelines, a document that details the process by which VA/DoD guidelines will be developed, including the use of the GRADE methodology. As required by Congress in CARA, the Work Group reviewed and considered the CDC guideline and its inclusion in the VA/DoD OT CPG.

Background information

What is the VA/DoD Guideline for Guidelines?

a document that details the process by which VA/DoD guidelines will be developed, including the use of the GRADE methodology

There were also some differences in the methodology used between the development of the VA/DoD OT CPG and the CDC guideline. Along with a clinical evidence review, during which the evidence was evaluated using GRADE, the CDC guideline developers also considered the findings of a contextual evidence review. Further, the CDC Core Expert Group, which consisted of subject matter experts, representatives of primary care professional societies and state agencies, and an expert in guideline methodology, reviewed recommendations drafted by the CDC and evaluated how the evidence was used in the development of the recommendations, rather than developing the recommendations themselves (as was the VA/DoD OT Work Group’s role in the development of the VA/DoD OT CPG). While experts provided feedback on the CDC recommendations and their development, the CDC determined the final recommendations. CDC also used a review process considering and incorporating feedback from federal partners (e.g., SAMHSA, VA, DoD), stakeholders (e.g., professional organizations, delivery systems, community organizations), and other constituents (e.g., clinicians, prospective patients). The CDC guideline development process included notice in the Federal Register for a public review and comment period as well as peer review. Thus, the recommendations made in the CDC guideline, although similar to those made in this CPG, were likely based on a slightly different evidence base and revised based on the feedback of individuals who were considering a larger group of potential patients relative to the VA/DoD. Thus, while the VA/DoD OT Work Group was aware of the release of the CDC guideline and considered potential implications, the CDC guideline did not form the basis of the deliberations on the strength or direction of these recommendations. The Work Group followed the VA/DoD Guideline for Guidelines, a document that details the process by which VA/DoD guidelines will be developed, including the use of the GRADE methodology. As required by Congress in CARA, the Work Group reviewed and considered the CDC guideline and its inclusion in the VA/DoD OT CPG.

Background information

Define pain according to the VA/DoD CPG.

an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage…Pain is always subjective…It is unquestionably a sensation in a part or parts of the body, but it is also always unpleasant and therefore also an emotional experience.

Pain is defined as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage…Pain is always subjective…It is unquestionably a sensation in a part or parts of the body, but it is also always unpleasant and therefore also an emotional experience.” All of these facets signify the complexity of pain as a condition by itself and how it relates to both the brain and the body. Pain as a symptom is multifaceted and is described and characterized by many factors such as its quality (e.g., sharp versus dull), intensity, timing, location, and whether it is associated with position or movement.

Background information

How to characterize pain as a symptom?

multifaceted

Pain is defined as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage…Pain is always subjective…It is unquestionably a sensation in a part or parts of the body, but it is also always unpleasant and therefore also an emotional experience.” All of these facets signify the complexity of pain as a condition by itself and how it relates to both the brain and the body. Pain as a symptom is multifaceted and is described and characterized by many factors such as its quality (e.g., sharp versus dull), intensity, timing, location, and whether it is associated with position or movement.

Background information

Which factors can describe and characterize pain as a symptom?

quality (e.g., sharp versus dull), intensity, timing, location, and whether it is associated with position or movement

Pain is defined as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage…Pain is always subjective…It is unquestionably a sensation in a part or parts of the body, but it is also always unpleasant and therefore also an emotional experience.” All of these facets signify the complexity of pain as a condition by itself and how it relates to both the brain and the body. Pain as a symptom is multifaceted and is described and characterized by many factors such as its quality (e.g., sharp versus dull), intensity, timing, location, and whether it is associated with position or movement.