PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
J Am Geriatr Soc. Author manuscript; available in PMC May 1, 2014.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3656132
NIHMSID: NIHMS441347
Shared Decision Making in the Selection of Outpatient Analgesics for Older Emergency Department Patients
Cameron G. Isaacs, BS,a Christine Kistler, MD, MASc,b Katherine M. Hunold, BSPH,c Greg F. Pereira,d Mara Buchbinder, PhD,e Mark A. Weaver, PhD,f Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH,dg and Timothy F. Platts-Mills, MDdg
aSchool of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
bDepartment of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
cDepartment of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
dDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
eDepartment of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
fDepartment of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
gDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
Corresponding Author: Timothy F. Platts-Mills, MD, 101 Manning Drive CB #7010, Medical School Wing C Basement, Anesthesiology Research, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7010, phone number: 559-240-6073, fax number: 919-966-7193, tplattsm/at/med.unc.edu
OBJECTIVES
To assess the relationship between older patients’ perceptions of shared decision making in the selection of an analgesic to take at home for acute musculoskeletal pain and 1) patient satisfaction with the analgesic and 2) changes in pain scores at one week.
DESIGN
Cross-sectional study.
SETTING
Single academic emergency department.
PARTICIPANTS
Individuals age 65 or older with acute musculoskeletal pain.
MEASUREMENTS
Two components of shared decision making were assessed: 1) information provided to the patient about the medication choice; and 2) patient participation in the selection of the analgesic. Optimal satisfaction with the analgesic was defined as being “a lot” satisfied. Pain scores were assessed in the ED and at one week using a 0-to-10 scale.
RESULTS
Of 159 patients reached by phone, 111 patients met all eligibility criteria and completed the survey. Half (52%) of patients reported receiving information about pain medication options, and one third (31%) reported participating in the analgesic selection. Patients who received information were more likely to report optimal satisfaction with the pain medication than those who did not (67% vs. 34%; p<0.001). Patients who participated in the decision were also more likely to report optimal satisfaction with the analgesic (71% vs. 43%; p<0.01) and had a greater average decrease in pain score (4.1 vs. 2.9; p=0.05). After adjusting for measured confounders, patients who reported receiving information remained more likely to report optimal satisfaction with the analgesic (63% vs. 38%; p=0.04).
CONCLUSION
These results provide preliminary evidence that shared decision making in analgesic selection for older patients with acute musculoskeletal pain may improve outcomes.
Keywords: geriatrics, pain, emergency medicine, decision making
Adults age 65 and older make approximately 7 million US emergency department(ED) visits annually for pain-related complaints, and most of these patients are sent home from the ED.1 The selection of an analgesic for older adults to take at home following an ED visit for acute pain is a complex decision which should take into consideration several factors: the likelihood of medication effectiveness in reducing pain; the possibility of both minor side effects and serious medication-related adverse events; and patient preferences regarding relief of pain vs. avoiding side effects and adverse events. Variability in patient preferences for pain treatment has been described among older adults.26 Because there are multiple potentially acceptable options for the outpatient treatment of acute pain in older adults for which individual preferences vary, shared decision making may be useful.7
Shared decision making is an interactive process in which health care providers and patients exchange information and discuss treatment preferences to reach an agreed-upon decision.8 The Institute of Medicine encourages providers to practice shared decision making and considers it an essential component of the patient-provider partnership.9 In primary care settings, shared decision making has been associated with increased patient satisfaction, improved medication adherence, and better health outcomes.1013 By incorporating patient experiences and preferences, shared decision making between providers and older ED patients with acute pain conditions might improve clinical outcomes.
The purpose of this study was to examine patients’ perceptions of shared decision making in the selection of an analgesic to take after discharge from the ED, and to evaluate associations between patients’ perceptions of shared decision making and 1) patient satisfaction with the analgesic prescribed or recommended and 2) reduction in pain scores at one week among older ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. We hypothesized that patients who reported receiving information about the analgesic options and who reported participating in the decision regarding the choice of analgesic would experience improved treatment-related outcomes.
Study Design
This was a cross-sectional study with consecutive enrollment of patients age 65 or older discharged home from the ED with a diagnosis of musculoskeletal pain. Patients were identified from the ED electronic medical record and a phone interview was conducted 4 to 7 days after ED discharge. Data were collected from March 2011 to March 2012. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Setting
The study site is a single academic ED serving a large and diverse community of older adults. In calendar year 2011, the ED had 64,480 visits with 16% of visits by patients age 65 or older. Patients received medical care from attending physicians or from nurse practitioners or residents working under the supervision of an attending physician. Providers did not receive formal training in shared decision making nor were they informed that the study was being conducted.
Selection of Patients
Patients were eligible if they were age 65 years or older, had an initial ED pain score >4 on a 0-to-10 scale recorded prior to receiving pain medication, were discharged home following ED evaluation, and had a discharge diagnosis consistent with musculoskeletal pain. Musculoskeletal pain was defined to include contusions, sprains, strains, lacerations, fractures, dislocations, or any other pain condition in the extremities, neck, or back for which the diagnosis was consistent with musculoskeletal pain. Patients were excluded if they did not speak English, lived in a nursing home, or had cognitive impairment as evidenced by documentation of dementia or altered mental status in the ED record or not being oriented to place and date at the time of the phone call interview.
Data Collection
The ED patient record was screened daily by a study investigator to identify potentially eligible patients. These patients were telephoned 4 to 7 days after discharge from the ED. At least three phone call attempts were made for each patient. After providing verbal informed consent, patients completed a 33-item questionnaire. The medical record was used to calculate a Charls on comorbidity score for each patient.14 All individuals conducting patient interviews completed a mock interview prior to initiating data collection.
Predictor Variables
Components of shared decision making were assessed with the following questions: 1) “How much information was given to you about different pain medications to go home with?” and 2)“Did you participate in the decision regarding pain medications to go home with?” using a 4-point Likert scale with categories of “a lot,” “some,” “very little,” or “none”/”not at all.” After evaluating the distribution of responses, these options were collapsed into two categories for analyses. The ‘received information’ group was defined as those patients who reported receiving “a lot” or “some” information. Similarly, the ‘participated in decision’ group was defined as those patients who participated “a lot” or “some” in the decision.
Outcome Variables
Patient satisfaction with the analgesic choice was assessed using the question: “How satisfied are you with the pain medication prescribed or recommended to you by the emergency provider?” quantified with a 4-point Likert scale (i.e. “a lot,” “some,” “very little,” or “not at all”). Responses were collapsed based on the distribution of responses into two groups with the ‘optimal satisfaction’ group defined as those patients who reported “a lot” of satisfaction. Consistent with the method of pain assessment used by nurses in the ED, pain was assessed at the one-week interview using a 0-to-10 scale with 0 = “no pain” and 10 = “worst pain imaginable.” Change in pain was defined as the difference between the initial pain score recorded by the nurse in the ED medical record prior to treatment and the pain score reported at the one week interview.
Data Analysis
Among enrolled patients, characteristics of patients reporting optimal satisfaction were compared with those reporting less than optimal satisfaction. For these comparisons age, Charlson comorbidity score, and initial pain score were treated as continuous variables and compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Other variables were treated as categorical and compared using chi-square tests. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between the two components of shared decision making and patient satisfaction and multivariable linear regression to assess the association between the two components of shared decision making and change in pain score. A term to represent the interaction between information received and participation was included in the initial regression analyses of both models but then dropped because it was not significant at the p=0.05 level. Little is known about determinants of shared decision making in the setting of acute pain management for older adults. Thus, covariates for inclusion in the models were selected based on known or presumed associations with analgesic selection or satisfaction with treatment –gender,15 race,16 education level,4 and initial pain severity. The model of patient satisfaction also adjusted for pain score at one week. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 11.0 (College Station, TX). Logistic regression results are reported as adjusted percentages, calculated using the STATA command predxcat.
Patient Characteristics
Of the 319 patients meeting initial eligibility criteria, 111 were contacted, met final eligibility criteria, and completed the survey (Figure 1). Enrolled and non-enrolled patients were similar in regard to age (mean 73, range 65–94 vs. mean 75, range 65–98), gender (female: 64% vs. 70%), race (white: 66% vs. 63%), initial pain score (mean 7.7 vs. 7.6), and the proportion prescribed opioids (71% vs. 63%). Among the 73 patients who took an opioid, 56 (77%) of these took a medication that contained both an opioid and acetaminophen. Twelve patients took non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and eleven took acetaminophen. Nine patients did not receive either a prescription or a recommendation for an analgesic, and a total of fifteen patients (13%) reported not taking any analgesic during the week following their ED visit. Patients who reported optimal satisfaction were similar to those who reported less than optimal satisfaction in regard to demographics, comorbidities, injury mechanism, ED pain scores, and analgesics prescribed or recommended (Table 1). The proportions of patients who were optimally satisfied were similar (p=0.17) among patients taking opioids (47%), non-opioids (52%), and no analgesic (73%).
Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient Enrollment Flow Chart
Table 1
Table 1
Characteristics of the study sample by satisfaction with the prescribed analgesic.
Shared Decision Making, Satisfaction, and Changes in Pain Scores
Of the 111 patients in the study, 58 (52%) reported receiving information about medication options, 34 (31%) reported participating in the decision, and 30 (27%) reported both receiving information and participating in the decision. Approximately half of patients (57, 51%) reported optimal satisfaction with the analgesic prescribed or recommended by the emergency provider. The mean decrease in pain score from the ED visit to the one week interview was 3.3 (95% confidence interval 2.7 to 3.9). Seventy (63%) patients reported moderate or severe pain (score >4) at one week.17
Patients who reported receiving information (i.e. “some” or “a lot”) were more likely to be optimally satisfied than those not receiving information (67% vs. 34%, Table 2). Similarly, patients who reported participating (i.e. “some” or “a lot”) in the selection of the analgesic were also more likely to be optimally satisfied with the analgesic (71% vs. 43%). After adjusting for participation, sex, race, education, initial pain score, and one week pain score, patients who reported receiving information about the analgesic were more likely to be optimally satisfied (63% vs. 38%, p=0.04). Patients who participated in the selection of the analgesic also experienced a greater average decrease in pain than patients who did not participate (4.1 vs. 2.9 point decrease, p=0.05). In a multivariable linear regression model, there was a trend towards a greater decrease in pain scores among patients who reported receiving information (p=0.08).
Table 2
Table 2
Satisfaction and mean change in pain among patients who did and did not receive information about or participate in the selection of an analgesic (N=111).
Among older adults discharged from the ED with a diagnosis of musculoskeletal pain, only half of patients reported receiving information about analgesics, and less than one third reported participating in the selection of an analgesic. Patients who reported receiving information about analgesic options or participating in the selection of an analgesic were more likely to be optimally satisfied with the medication prescribed or recommended. In regression models adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and pain symptoms, the association between information received and satisfaction with the pain treatment persisted, and there was a trend towards greater decreases in pain scores among patients who received information.
Effective management of acute pain in older adults is important both for the relief of suffering and because acute pain may predispose individuals to persistent pain and a decline in physical function.18 Our results indicate that continued pain at one week is common among older individuals seen in the ED with acute musculoskeletal pain, but suggest that the provision of components of shared decision making may improve outcomes for these patients. Further study of shared decision making for analgesic selection in older adults is needed to better understand the relationship between shared decision making and outcomes and to determine if interventions to increase the use of shared decision making can provide a patient-oriented solution to the challenge of optimizing the pharmacologic management of pain in older adults.1921
The low levels of information sharing and participation reported by patients in the current study suggest that there are barriers to shared decision making regarding analgesic selection for older ED patients. These barriers might include a lack of familiarity with shared decision making or failure to prioritize the effective outpatient treatment of pain in older adults given the limited time available for patient care in the ED.22, 23 Despite these barriers, we believe shared decision making has potential value in the selection of outpatient analgesics for older ED patients. First, components of shared decision making can be applied to a treatment decision occurring at a single visit.24, 25 Second, the provision of information and elicitation of preferences about analgesics may be achieved during the time typically available for patient-provider interactions in the ED. Third, training internists in shared decision making regarding chronic pain has been shown to be feasible;26 and we believe that similar training would be acceptable to emergency providers.
This study has several limitations with implications for both its internal and external validity. Four patient refused to participate because they were experiencing severe pain, were feeling too sick, or wanted to call a doctor. These refusals result in a slightly biased sample. Components of shared decision making were assessed one week after the ED visit and at the same time as outcome measures. Thus, patient reporting of the information provided and participation in the decision may have been influenced by their pain relief. Shared decision making is a complex and interactional process and more detailed assessment methods including whether information was provided verbally or in writing and what information was exchanged between providers and patients might allow for a more complete characterization of the decision making process. The relationship between components of shared decision making in the ED and one week outcomes might be confounded by factors not incorporated into the analysis for this study (e.g., effectiveness of pain management in the ED, physical activity during the intervening period). Although enrolled and eligible but non-enrolled patients were similar in regard to demographic characteristics, pain scores, and pain medications received, in other ways (e.g., social support, education level) enrolled patients might not be a representative sample of older ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. The study was conducted at a single academic ED in the Southeastern United States, and most patients received care from resident physicians. Physician communication behaviors, analgesic prescribing practices, and patient preferences may be different in private EDs and in other geographic locations and may vary with physician training. Lastly, we only studied discharged patients. The role of shared decision making during the inpatient and early outpatient treatment of pain among older patients with pain so severe as to require hospital admission also deserves attention.
In summary, we observe associations between components of shared decision making and satisfaction with analgesic choice and decreased pain scores one week after the ED visit. Further research is needed to determine the potential of shared decision making to improve outcomes for older adults with acute musculoskeletal pain.
Acknowledgments
Sponsor’s Role: The National Institutes of Health had no role in the design, methods, participant recruitment, data collection, analysis, or preparation of this paper.
Footnotes
Disclosure: This manuscript was presented at the 2012 Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Geriatrics Society in Seattle, WA, on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, and the 2012 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL, on Saturday, May 12th, 2012.
Author Contributions: Mr. Isaacs and Dr. Platts-Mills: Study concept and design, analysis, and interpretation of data, preparation of the manuscript. Ms. Hunold and Mr. Pereria: Acquisition of data, analysis, and preparation of the manuscript. Dr. Kistler, Dr. Buchbinder, and Dr. McLean: Interpretation of data and preparation of the manuscript. Dr. Weaver: Analysis and preparation of the manuscript.
Financial Disclosure: Dr. Platts-Mills is supported by Award Number KL2TR000084 and UL1 RR025747 from the National Center for Research Resources through the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute. Dr. Kistler is supported by Award Number K12 HS19468-01 from the UNC Mentored Career Development Program in Comparative Effectiveness Development. Cameron Isaacs was supported by Grant 5T35AG038047-02 from the National Institute on Aging through the UNC-CH Summer Research in Aging for Medical Students Program. Mark Weaver is supported byUL1TR000083 from the National Center for Research Resources through the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute. Dr. Buchbinder is supported by the National Center for Research Resources and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through Grant KL2TR000084. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, or the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Science Institute.
Conflict of Interest: The authors do not have any conflict of interest related to this subject matter. This work was supported by National Center for Research Resources Grants KL2TR000084 and UL1 RR025747 (Platts-Mills, Buchbinder, Weaver), K12 HS19468-01 (Kistler), and National Institute on Aging Grant 5T35AG038047-02 through the UNC-CH Summer Research in Aging for Medical Students Program (Isaacs).
1. Platts-Mills TF, Esserman DA, Brown DL, et al. Older US emergency department patients are less likely to receive pain medication than younger patients: results from a national survey. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:199–206. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Gregorian RS, Jr, Gasik A, Kwong WJ, et al. Importance of side effects in opioid treatment: A trade-off analysis with patients and physicians. J Pain. 2010;11:1095–1108. [PubMed]
3. Chancellor J, Martin M, Liedgens H, et al. Stated preferences of physicians and chronic pain sufferers in the use of classic strong opioids. Value Health. 2012;15:106–117. [PubMed]
4. Platts-Mills TF, Hunold KM, Bortsov AV, et al. More educated emergency department patients are less likely to receive opioids for acute pain. Pain. 2012;153:967–973. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Fanciullo GJ. Who receives opioids for acute pain in emergency departments? Considering evidence, patient and provider preferences. Pain. 2012;153:941–942. [PubMed]
6. Sale JE, Gignac M, Hawker G. How “bad” does the pain have to be? A qualitative study examining adherence to pain medication in older adults with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55:272–278. [PubMed]
7. Barry MJ. Shared decision making: informing and involving patients to do the right thing in health care. J Ambulatory Care Manage. 2012;35:90–98. [PubMed]
8. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango) Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–692. [PubMed]
9. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press; 2001. [PubMed]
10. Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE., Jr Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:520–528. [PubMed]
11. Krones T, Keller H, Sonnichsen A, et al. Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and shared decision making in primary care: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:218–227. [PubMed]
12. Adams RJ, Smith BJ, Ruffin RE. Impact of the physician’s participatory style in asthma outcomes and patient satisfaction. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2001;86:263–271. [PubMed]
13. Naik AD, Kallen MA, Walder A, et al. Improving hypertension control in diabetes mellitus: The effects of collaborative and proactive health communication. Circulation. 2008;117:1361–1368. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, et al. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1245–1251. [PubMed]
15. Chen EH, Shofer FS, Dean AJ, et al. Gender disparity in analgesic treatment of emergency department patients with acute abdominal pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:414–418. [PubMed]
16. Pletcher MJ, Kertesz SG, Kohn MA, et al. Trends in opioid prescribing by race/ethnicity for patients seeking care in US emergency departments. JAMA. 2008;299:70–78. [PubMed]
17. Krebs EE, Carey TS, Weinberger M. Accuracy of the pain numeric rating scale as a screening test in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1453–1458. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Morrison RS, Magaziner J, McLaughlin MA, et al. The impact of post-operative pain on outcomes following hip fracture. Pain. 2003;103:303–311. [PubMed]
19. Solomon DH, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, et al. The comparative safety of analgesics in older adults with arthritis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1968–1976. [PubMed]
20. Hwang U, Morrison RS, Richardson LD, et al. A painful setback: Misinterpretation of analgesic safety in older adults may inadvertently worsen pain care. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1127. author reply 1127–1128. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Hwang U, Richardson LD, Harris B, et al. The quality of emergency department pain care for older adult patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58:2122–2128. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Pines JM, Hollander JE. Emergency department crowding is associated with poor care for patients with severe pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;51:1–5. [PubMed]
23. Pines JM, Shofer FS, Isserman JA, et al. The effect of emergency department crowding on analgesia in patients with back pain in two hospitals. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17:276–283. [PubMed]
24. Volk RJ, Cass AR, Spann SJ. A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med. 1999;8:333–340. [PubMed]
25. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM, Felitti V. The evaluation of two methods to facilitate shared decision making for men considering the prostate-specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:391–398. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Sullivan MD, Leigh J, Gaster B. Brief report: Training internists in shared decision making about chronic opioid treatment for noncancer pain. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:360–362. [PMC free article] [PubMed]