Share this article on:

A Contemporary Medicolegal Analysis of Outpatient Medication Management in Chronic Pain

Abrecht, Christopher R. MD*; Brovman, Ethan Y. MD; Greenberg, Penny RN, MS; Song, Ellen BA; Rathmell, James P. MD†§; Urman, Richard D. MD, MBA†§

doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002499
Chronic Pain Medicine: Original Clinical Research Report

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently used in chronic pain management but are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in some patient populations. An important avenue for identifying complications—including serious or rare complications—is the study of closed malpractice claims. The present study is intended to complement the existing closed claims literature by drawing on claims from a more recent timeframe through a partnership with a large malpractice carrier, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO). The goal of this study was to identify patient medical comorbidities and aberrant drug behaviors, as well as prescriber practices associated with patient injury and malpractice claims. Another objective was to identify claims most likely to result in payments and use this information to propose a strategy for reducing medicolegal risk.

METHODS: The CRICO Strategies Comparative Benchmarking System is a database of claims drawing from >350,000 malpractice claims from Harvard-affiliated institutions and >400 other academic and community institutions across the United States. This database was queried for closed claims from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2013, and identified 37 cases concerning noninterventional, outpatient chronic pain management. Each file consisted of a narrative summary, including expert witness testimony, as well as coded fields for patient demographics, medical comorbidities, the alleged damaging event, the alleged injurious outcome, the total financial amount incurred, and more. We performed an analysis using these claim files.

RESULTS: The mean patient age was 43.5 years, with men representing 59.5% of cases. Payments were made in 27% of cases, with a median payment of $72,500 and a range of $7500–$687,500. The majority of cases related to degenerative joint disease of the spine and failed back surgery syndrome; no patients in this series received treatment of malignant pain. Approximately half (49%) of cases involved a patient death. The use of long-acting opioids and medical conditions affecting the cardiac and pulmonary systems were more closely associated with death than with other outcomes. The nonpain medical conditions present in this analysis included obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. Other claims ranged from alleged addiction to opioids from improper prescribing to alleged abandonment with withdrawal of care. The CRICO analysis suggested that patient behavior contributed to over half of these claims, whereas deficits in clinical judgment contributed to approximately 40% of the claims filed.

CONCLUSIONS: Claims related to outpatient medication management in pain medicine are multifactorial, stemming from deficits in clinical judgment by physicians, noncooperation in care by patients, and poor clinical documentation. Minimization of both legal risk and patient harm can be achieved by carefully selecting patients for chronic opioid therapy and documenting compliance and improvement with the treatment plan. Medical comorbidities such as obstructive sleep apnea and the use of long-acting opioids may be particularly dangerous. Continuing physician education on the safest and most effective approaches to manage these medications in everyday practice will lead to both improved legal security and patient safety.

From the *Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, Division of Pain Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Strategies, Boston, Massachusetts; and §Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Accepted for publication August 18, 2017.

Funding: None.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Reprints will not be available from the authors.

Address correspondence to Christopher R. Abrecht, MD, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, University of San Francisco Medical Center, Pain Management Center, 2255 Post St, San Francisco, CA. Address e-mail to Christopher.abrecht@ucsf.edu.

There are >100 million patients in the United States with chronic pain,1 and physicians may use a variety of treatment modalities, including physical medicine, behavioral medicine, injections, neuromodulation, and nonopioid and opioid analgesics. In recent years, the use of opioids to manage chronic pain has increased, with outpatient opioid prescriptions nearly doubling from 2000 to 2010 despite minimal changes in the incidence of ambulatory visits for chronic pain.2 Concurrent with this increase of opioid prescriptions has been an increase in mortality from opioid overdose,3 along with increased scrutiny of the use of opioids from the public, medical societies, and the federal government. Among the established risk factors for overdose of prescription opioids are lower socioeconomic status, mental health disorders, chronic pain, high doses of prescription opioids, concurrent prescription of benzodiazepines, and prescriptions from multiple providers.4 This observed increase in mortality along with the lack of evidence supporting the long-term benefits of opioids for noncancer chronic pain5 were among the impetuses for the recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines concerning opioid prescribing.6 These guidelines not only identify the types of patients for whom opioids are a high-risk treatment option but also suggest the instances in which referral to a pain specialist might be warranted.

An important avenue for identifying complications—including serious or rare complications—is the study of closed malpractice claims. Previous studies in this arena from the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Closed Claims Project are thought to have improved patient safety7 and have already touched on medication management for chronic pain, drawing from a period between 2005 and 2008.8 This recent ASA study examined prescription opioid claims and found that 82% of the claims involved patients who did not cooperate in their care, physicians who inappropriately managed the prescription opioids, or both. In that series, death was the outcome in 57% of claims. Vigilance for the aberrant drug behaviors identified in that study and identification of the prescribing patterns from that period associated with patient death may have raised physician awareness about the risks of opioid prescription and led to improved patient safety.

The present study is intended to complement the existing closed claims literature by drawing on claims from a more recent timeframe through a partnership with a large malpractice carrier, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO). Our previous medicolegal analysis performed with CRICO focused on implanted devices in chronic pain medicine,9 and it was structured in a similar manner to the present study. We hypothesized that there are identifiable patient comorbidities and behaviors as well as prescriber clinical practices associated with patient injury that may result in a malpractice claim.

Back to Top | Article Outline

METHODS

The CRICO Strategies Comparative Benchmarking System is a database of claims drawing from >350,000 malpractice claims from Harvard-affiliated institutions and >400 other academic and community institutions across the United States. This database, used by CRICO to study patient and provider risk, was electronically queried (by study authors P.G. and E.S.) for cases where the claim was closed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013, and for which pain medicine was the primary service. When each claim file is initially entered into the database, a coded field for the primary responsible service is determined by the CRICO clinical taxonomy specialist importing the claim file. This determination is based on a complete review of the claim file and specifically if the named physician identifies as a specialist in pain management. Information was not available on the training background and board certification of each named physician. In this analysis, the primary responsible service filter used was for “pain medicine.” Among all the medical specialties, pain medicine represented approximately 1% of claims. Manual and independent inspection of the clinical narratives by the study authors (C.R.A., P.G., and R.D.U.) excluded any cases related to inpatient acute postoperative pain management. Further manual and independent inspection by the study authors (C.R.A., P.G., and R.D.U.) then excluded the 18% of claims relating to implanted devices in chronic pain (n = 30) and the 60% of claims relating to interventional techniques in chronic pain (n = 98). Ultimately, 37 cases were claims concerning noninterventional, outpatient chronic pain management. These cases were the focus of the present study, which was approved by CRICO and the authors’ institutional review board.

A summary of the claim files, reviewed directly on-site by the study authors (C.R.A., E.Y.B., and R.D.U.), consisted of a detailed narrative and coded variables compiled by CRICO. A team of risk managers and registered nurses trained as CRICO taxonomy specialists had previously compiled these files. The integrity of the data and consistency of the application of the CRICO taxonomy system are further ensured by the review of each case by a governance committee of physicians, lawyers, and other specialists. The narrative summaries described not only the clinical aspects of the claim but also included testimony of expert witnesses for the defense and for the plaintiff and the legal conclusion of the case (eg, not pursued after initial filing, dismissed with prejudice). Claims were deidentified to protect the identity of the patient, physician, and specific health care system involved in the claim. It was not clear in all cases if the physician managing the patient’s medication regimen was prescribing all the opioid and nonopioid medications or instead just prescribed the opioid medications. When we sought additional information, the original case documents were further reviewed by the CRICO collaborators.

The CRICO coding taxonomy system used to describe various elements of each claim consists of hundreds of fields for clinical data elements, with data drawn from direct review of medical and legal documents as well as International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Current Procedural Terminology, and billing codes. This proprietary system was first developed by CRICO >40 years ago to capture ongoing and emerging trends in patient risk and financial outcomes. For each of the claim files, the following CRICO-coded fields were queried: patient age, sex, clinical location (ie, outpatient office), total financial amount incurred, indemnity payment amount, case description (eg, improper medication management, abandonment), pain diagnosis (eg, peripheral neuropathy), alleged damaging event, and alleged outcome. Another extracted field was the National Association of Insurance Commissioners outcome severity score,10 with “high severity” scores of 6–9 corresponding to permanent major injury or death, “medium severity” scores of 3–5 corresponding to temporary major or permanent minor injury, and “low severity” scores of 0–2 corresponding to temporary minor injury.

A final extracted CRICO field was the contributing factor determined to have resulted in filing of the claim. Behavior-related patient factors included noncompliance with treatment plan and failure to complete the scheduled follow-up appointments and tests; behavior-related provider factors included sexual misconduct. Clinical judgment factors included inadequate patient assessment, improper selection of therapy, and inadequate monitoring. Communication factors included inadequate communication among providers, poor rapport with the patient, and inadequate education of the patient regarding risks of treatment. Documentation factors included insufficient, inaccurate, or delayed documentation. Technical problem factors included a pharmacy dispensing error and a medication product malfunction. Electronic health record factors included user error with implementation of new system. Administrative factors included inadequate training of staff.

The CRICO-coded variables, including the contributing factors, were determined according to CRICO’s proprietary taxonomy system applied by clinical taxonomy specialists.

Additional data elements were drawn from review of the claim file clinical summaries. This review was performed independently by multiple study authors (C.R.A., E.Y.B., and R.D.U.) and included the following data points: psychiatric comorbidity, medical comorbidity, aberrant drug behaviors, prescribed opioid, prescribed psychotropic medications, and nonprescribed substances found in urine toxicology screening. All counts reflect the individual occurrence of each event; individual patients may have multiple medical or psychiatric comorbidities.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analysis

Comparisons between the group with death as the outcome and the group with other alleged outcomes were performed using Pearson χ2 test. R Project for Statistical Computing (R version 3.2.3; R Project for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) was used to perform all statistical analysis. Multiple comparisons were made in this study when comparing claims involving death to claims not involving a death, looking at multiple categories such as psychiatric, pulmonary, and cardiac medical factors, the presence of aberrant drug behaviors, and prescribed medications. These are detailed in Table 3. To account for multiple comparisons, and acknowledging that many of the events and comparisons are not independent, this study controlled for the false discovery rate (FDR) through application of the Benjamini-Hochberg Procedure.11 In contrast to controlling for the family-wise type I error rate, which controls for the probability of at least 1 type I error occurring, controlling for the FDR controls for the expected proportion of significant findings (defined as rejection of the null hypothesis at P < .05) that are false. The q value is defined as the adjusted P value after application of the FDR approach. An FDR cutoff is subsequently applied on the q values to define significance. An FDR of 0.1 was set a priori, before performing comparisons. Based on the total number of comparisons performed, all comparisons with P values < .07 satisfied the study’s criteria of a q value <0.1. To prevent a further increase in the family-wise error rate that would result from application of the FDR alone, the study considered all P values < .05 to be significant due to meeting both the prespecified α and FDR.

This analysis was limited to univariable comparisons, because the reporting of potential confounding variables was inconsistent between cases, thus impairing the ability to pick covariables that would be applicable across all cases. The sample size for this study was predetermined based on the number of applicable cases in the CRICO database for the period studied. Given the limitations of the data available, the available power of the study was assessed. Risk of death was determined based on a previous closed claims analysis from the ASA Closed Claims Project, where 57% of claims involved death.12 Based on that study, the observed effect size was 0.14. Using the present study’s sample size of 37, the available power is 0.14. All calculations were performed using G*Power analyses (version 3.1.9.3; University of Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany).13,14

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

An overview of the patient demographics and financial impact of the claims are listed in Table 1. The mean patient age was 43.5 years, with a standard deviation of 12.5 years; men represented 59.5% of cases. Payments were made in 27% of cases, with a median payment of $72,500 and a range of $7500–$687,500. The chronic pain diagnoses and anatomical pain locations for the claims are listed in Table 2. The majority of cases related to degenerative joint disease of the spine and failed back surgery syndrome; no patients in this series received treatment of malignant pain.

Table 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 2

The damaging events alleged to have resulted in injury to the patient are depicted in Figure 1. The patient injuries alleged to have resulted from these damaging events are depicted in Figure 2. Of the 14 cases alleged to have resulted in emotional trauma, 2 stemmed from iatrogenic addiction to opioids and 4 stemmed from abandonment when care was withdrawn after aberrant drug behaviors were noted. Others stemmed from alleged sexual harassment, denial of a medication the physician considered inappropriate for the patient, and not allowing a service animal into a sterile part of the outpatient clinic.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 2

The medical and psychiatric comorbidities of the patients and an overview of the pharmacologic agents involved in the claims, comparing those claims associated with death with the nondeath claims, are detailed in Table 3. The pulmonary and cardiac medical comorbidities were present in a total of 7 patients. Four patients had 1 cardiopulmonary comorbidity, 2 patients had 2 cardiopulmonary comorbidities, and 1 patient had 3 cardiopulmonary comorbidities. All the cases resulting in patient death involved patients prescribed opioids; the majority of cases not resulting in death also involved patients prescribed opioids. Methadone was implicated in 6 of the cases resulting in patient death and 3 of the cases resulting in other patient outcomes. Buprenorphine was implicated in none of the cases in this series.

Table 3

Table 3

Allegations of improper medication management represented 65% of claims, and all the cases resulting in patient death were associated with alleged improper medication management. Of the cases involving a patient death, in 4 cases, aberrant drug behaviors were apparent before the patient death. In 1 instance, a prescription of >300 mg daily of oral morphine equivalents was provided to a 44-year-old man with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) for cervical degenerative joint disease pain despite multiple lost prescriptions and early refill requests, and without urine toxicology screening or other compliance measures. This patient was transitioned at the patient’s request to methadone and found dead a few days later having overdosed on methadone and nonprescribed benzodiazepines. In 4 other cases, no aberrant drug behaviors were apparent until after the patient was found dead. For example, a 53-year-old man without significant medical or psychiatric comorbidities with lumbar degenerative joint disease had a longstanding prescription of methadone and low doses of oxycodone for breakthrough pain. This patient underwent frequent urine toxicology tests, had an opioid contract, displayed no aberrant behaviors, and also underwent interventional pain procedures as part of a multimodal treatment plan. He was found dead with cocaine and nonprescribed benzodiazepines in his system. In the remaining 9 cases involving a patient death, the patient was found to have cooperated in their care. One such case described a prescription of a fentanyl patch to a 28-year-old woman with a connective tissue disorder with failed back surgery syndrome as well as an aortic dissection who underwent appropriate compliance testing but was found dead. No autopsy was performed because it was thought her underlying cardiac pathology was more likely the cause of death than her stable opioid regimen.

Five cases involved abandonment claims, all resulting from physicians refusing to provide opioid refills or imposing an opioid taper when patients had inappropriate urine toxicology tests or other red flags—including 1 case in which a patient repeatedly presented in an intoxicated state to the clinic. Abandonment claims also occurred in instances in which physicians initiated termination of the patient–physician relationship and simultaneously provided a short course of opioids to prevent potential withdrawal and an instance in which a physician recommended that a patient with multiple psychiatric comorbidities be comanaged with an addiction psychiatrist. None of these 5 cases resulted in a payment to the claimant; median and mean total amount incurred by the insurance carrier in these cases were $750 and $2653, respectively. A related allegation was of iatrogenic addiction, representing 3 cases, which in this series usually involved younger patients. In 1 case, a 22-year-old man referred to a pain physician for sciatica was prescribed oxycodone 30 mg 4 times daily, acetaminophen/hydrocodone 10–325 mg 4 times daily, amphetamine/dextroamphetamine 20 mg 3 times daily, and alprazolam 2 mg 3 times daily. No treatment modalities other than medication were offered, and no imaging other than an x-ray was obtained. This patient was later arrested for heroin use and claimed addiction. Two of these 3 cases were settled; the median and mean total amount incurred were $68,133 and $110,778, respectively.

Other cases in this series pertained not directly to the medications prescribed, but to issues that arose during medication management. For example, one such case described an allegation of “failure to diagnose,” which was the result of a patient managed medically across multiple office visits for knee pain, with the treating pain physician having failed to notice that the available knee imaging showed an operative tibial plateau fracture. In a “wrong procedure” allegation, a physician ordered a cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging despite the patient having shrapnel in his eyes, resulting in vision deficits. Allegations of “sexual misconduct” stemmed from physician sexual advances; in 1 case, a physician later admitted to exchanging sexual intercourse for opioid prescriptions.

The factors determined to most frequently contribute to the filing of a claim in this series are listed in Table 4. From the categories listed in Table 4, 2 cases had no factors, 9 cases had 1 factor, 17 cases had 2 factors, 6 cases had 3 factors, 1 case had 4 factors, 1 case had 5 factors, and 1 case had 6 factors.

Table 4

Table 4

These factors were derived from the CRICO taxonomy system. Most common were patient behavior–related factors, followed by deficits in clinical judgment, communication, and documentation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

In our chronic pain medicine analysis, outpatient medication management represented 22% of claims. Previous malpractice studies have shown a similar incidence of this type of claim: The ASA Closed Claims Project noted that from 2000 to 2012, medication management represented 17% of all chronic pain medicine claims.14 In this CRICO analysis of closed claims related to outpatient medication management for chronic pain, approximately half (49%) of cases involved an allegation of patient death due to improper medication management of nonmalignant chronic pain. Patient medical comorbidities (ie, cardiopulmonary disease) and long-acting opioids were more closely associated with death than with other outcomes. Psychiatric comorbidities and aberrant drug behaviors were not as closely associated with death as were medical and pharmacologic factors. Other claims ranged from alleged addiction to opioids from improper prescribing to alleged abandonment with withdrawal of care. The analysis suggested that patient behavior contributed to over half of these claims, whereas deficits in clinical judgment contributed to approximately 40% of the claims filed. When treating opioid-dependent patients with complex medical and psychiatric comorbidities, our analysis leads us to suggest that physicians should educate patients about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of opioid therapy, perform compliance monitoring, and maintain vigilance for aberrant behaviors. These recommendations echo the recent CDC guidelines for prescribing opioids for chronic pain. We propose that these efforts would improve patient safety and minimize legal risk.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Claims Involving Patient Death

Our analysis builds on previous literature showing that opioid overdose and death are associated with certain cardiopulmonary and psychiatric comorbidities. Prior clinical studies have illustrated a dose-dependent relationship between chronic opioid use with sleep apnea and disordered breathing,16–18 as well as a relationship between pulmonary disease or sleep apnea with opioid overdose in patients taking opioids for chronic lower back pain.19 Prior closed claims studies have also shown that, in the perioperative setting, obesity and OSA are associated with fatal respiratory depression in patients receiving opioids.20 In that perioperative claims study, obesity was noted in 66% of cases and OSA or a high suspicion of OSA was noted in 25% of cases. In our outpatient claims study, in cases involving patient death, obesity or OSA was noted in 22% of cases and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was noted in 11% of cases. Comparing the cases in our series involving death versus some other outcome, the presence of medical conditions affecting the pulmonary system (ie, OSA, obesity, COPD) were associated with death (P = .029). Based on this information alone, no causal relationship can be made between these pulmonary conditions and death in patients prescribed opioids, in part because the precise inciting etiology of death (eg, apnea versus cardiac arrhythmia) is often not known in outpatient claims. As previously stated, the small size and observational nature of this analysis also substantially limit the ability to make clinically significant conclusions or comment on any causal relationships. The association does, however, suggest additional caution should be exercised in patients with pulmonary comorbidities, such as OSA or COPD, who are prescribed opioids.

Furthermore, prior clinical trials have demonstrated an association between mood disorders, substance use disorders, and other psychiatric comorbidities with opioid misuse and overdose.21–23 Our study did not show that claims involving a patient death were more likely to involve a psychiatric comorbidity (eg, major depressive disorder, suicide attempt, prior substance use disorder) (P = .07), although the claim numbers in our analysis were small. The 2010 ASA closed claims study on medication management in pain medicine has shown depression, history of a suicide attempt, and substance use disorder present in 86% of claims. Our study showed that these same factors as well as psychosis were present in 61% of all claims, indicating a correlation between these factors and medicolegal activity.

Both medical and psychiatric comorbidities likely contribute to patient death, although the extent to which each type of comorbidity precisely contributes remains unclear and strong conclusions cannot be drawn from the present study. Interestingly, in this analysis, medical comorbidities appeared to be more strongly associated with patient death than were psychiatric comorbidities. In previous studies, aberrant drug–related behaviors (eg, using prescription analgesics faster than prescribed, obtaining prescription pain medications from nonprescription sources) were linked to opioid use disorders24 and death.25 Such aberrant drug–related behaviors were indeed present in many of the claims in this series involving a patient death. These behaviors were, however, statistically significantly more common in claims in this series not involving a patient death (P = .04). The 2010 ASA closed claims study on medication management in pain medicine identified 43 adverse drug–related behaviors (ADBs) in the 51 claims studied, with claims associated with death more likely to have 3 or more ADBs. Analyzing the same behaviors in our study, we identified 22 ADBs in the 31 claims studied, but did not note claims associated with death being more likely to have 3 or more ADBs (P ≥ .05). Together, these observations suggest that medical cardiopulmonary comorbidities may play a greater role in increasing a patient’s risk for death from opioid misuse than do psychiatric comorbidities or aberrant drug behaviors such as “doctor shopping” or “failing” a urine toxicology test.

Our analysis also builds on previous literature linking opioids and patient death. Prior clinical studies have associated prescription of long-acting opioids for chronic noncancer pain with death.26 The 2010 ASA closed claims study on outpatient pain medicine has also associated long-acting opioids for noncancer pain with death, compared to other outcomes (93% of death claims, 59% of nondeath claims, P = .005). Similarly, the present study showed a statistically significant preponderance of long-acting opioid prescriptions in the claims involving patient death compared to other outcomes (35% of death claims, 10% of other claims, P = .03). Due to the small sample size and insufficient information in some instances on dosage, we cannot comment, as has been done in previous studies, on an increased risk of death when crossing a certain threshold of morphine equivalent dose.27 Similarly, while previous work has illustrated an increased risk of death when opioids are combined with benzodiazepines or other psychotropic medications,28,29 we could not with our sample size perform a detailed analysis on the coadministration of opioids with other sedating medications. We did note, however, that among cases involving a patient death, all of which involved prescription of opioids, there was an association with psychotropic or sedating medications (P = .03). Likewise, methadone has been associated with an increased risk of out-of-hospital patient death30,31 but did not reach statistical significance with the patient death claims in this series (P = .18), despite being present in approximately one-third of death claims. The coprescription of an opioid with a psychotropic medication and the relative frequent administration of methadone—usually not a prescriber’s analgesic first choice—could instead reflect that the patients in this series are medically complex and high risk. That is, even if the patient does not have a verified permanent disabling outcome as a result of the pain care provided, that patient requiring medical management of psychiatric comorbidities and methadone maintenance is potentially more likely to be involved in a legal claim. Furthermore, the absence of claims involving buprenorphine, a partial agonist opioid with a respiratory depression ceiling effect, could reflect the overall superior safety margin and manageability of this medication compared to methadone.30

Back to Top | Article Outline

Addiction and Abandonment

The notion that allegations of addiction as well as abandonment are part of the risk of prescribing pain medications is supported by the current series, as well as the existing literature. The 2010 ASA closed claims study on medication management in pain medicine found, for instance, that allegations of addiction represent 24% of all claims. Indeed, patients may complain of iatrogenic addiction to opioids (or some other medication) and then abandonment when a change is made in the care plan. In that vein, in the present study, 21% of all claims pertained to either allegations of addiction, abandonment, or both. To identify the patients who are most appropriate for chronic opioid therapy, pain society guidelines,33,34 CDC guidelines, and risk evaluation and mitigation strategies from the Food and Drug Administration for long-acting opioids offer some guidance.35 Among these recommendations are the use of a screening questionnaire such as the Opioid Risk Tool,36 a clear assessment of the patient’s chronic pain diagnosis, and documentation at each visit of the opioid’s effect on analgesia, activities of daily living, adverse side effects, and any aberrant drug behaviors. No prescribing physician in this series utilized all of those assessment tools.

Similarly, physicians are at risk for claims of abandonment, defined as “A unilateral severance of the physician-patient relationship without reasonable notice, at a time when there is still the necessity for continued medical attention.”37 Prior studies have suggested that to avoid claims of abandonment, physicians should document informed consent regarding the risk of addiction with opioid treatment.38 Also, if care is terminated, then the reasons for termination should be documented in the chart, a letter sent to the patient via certified mail, a 30-day notice offered, the need for continued medical care conveyed, and the patient given a referral to a number of other providers.39 Again, no physician named in this series with an allegation of abandonment had documented following all those steps.

From a financial perspective, the observation that none of the abandonment cases settled and that the legal fees for these cases were very low (median, $750; mean, $2653) might provide reassurance to physicians hesitant to deny inappropriate and harmful patient demands. Concomitantly, the higher incidence of settlement and the higher legal fees for claims related to iatrogenic addiction are yet another reason to give pause to a physician practicing medical management.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Global Contributors to Claims

Ultimately, the factors contributing to the alleged patient injuries and the legal claims originate from both the patient and the physician. Prior closed claims studies on outpatient medication management in pain medicine have identified risk stemming from patient noncompliance, physician error due to knowledge deficits, and system-based problems.40,41 The present study uses algorithmically determined contributing factors to support this idea. Patient behavior was thought to contribute to over half of claims, deficits in clinical judgment to over 40% of claims, communication to approximately a 30% of claims, and documentation to approximately 20% of claims.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Limitations

The limitations of closed claim studies have been described previously.42 These studies do not include all the complications in pain medicine and are more likely to represent instances where severe injury has occurred, in part because these cases are more likely to result in financial compensation. Closed claim analyses are also retrospective and without a control, unable to comment definitively on a cause–effect relationship. These data are also not randomized and are blinded in terms of geography; applicability to a particular provider’s practice is therefore diminished. In addition, the small sample size of this study results in a low power to detect clinically important differences. The presence of multiple comparisons within a small data set also increases the risk of falsely finding an association where none is present. While we attempted to control for this risk through calculation of the FDR, we cannot exclude the occurrence of a type I error. Finally, the contributing factor criteria and other coded fields provided by CRICO are proprietary and cannot be independently verified.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSIONS

Claims related to outpatient medication management in pain medicine are multifactorial, stemming from deficits in clinical judgment by physicians and noncooperation in care by patients. Minimization of both legal risk and patient harm can be achieved by carefully selecting patients for chronic opioid therapy and evaluating compliance and improvement with the treatment plan. Medical comorbidities and the use of long-acting opioids in combination may be particularly dangerous.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCLOSURES

Name: Christopher R. Abrecht, MD.

Contribution: This author helped design the work, collect and analyze the data, draft and revise the manuscript, and coordinate the other authors’ contributions.

Name: Ethan Y. Brovman, MD.

Contribution: This author helped design the work, collect and analyze the data, include the statistical analysis, and revise the manuscript.

Name: Penny Greenberg, RN, MS.

Contribution: This author helped design the work, analyze the data, and revise the manuscript.

Name: Ellen Song, BA.

Contribution: This author helped collect and analyze the data and revise the manuscript.

Name: James P. Rathmell, MD.

Contribution: This author helped design the work and revise the manuscript.

Name: Richard D. Urman, MD, MBA.

Contribution: This author helped design the work, revise the manuscript, and coordinate the other authors’ contributions.

This manuscript was handled by: Honorio T. Benzon, MD.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Dzau VJ, Pizzo PA. Relieving pain in America: insights from an Institute of Medicine committee. JAMA. 2014;312:1507–1508.
2. Daubresse M, Chang HY, Yu Y, et al. Ambulatory diagnosis and treatment of nonmalignant pain in the United States, 2000-2010. Med Care. 2013;51:870–878.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: overdoses of prescription opioid pain relievers—United States, 1999–2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:1487–1492.
4. Paulozzi LJ. Prescription drug overdoses: a review. J Safety Res. 2012;43:283–289.
5. Chou R, Deyo R, Devine B, et al. The Effectiveness and Risks of Long-Term Opioid Treatment of Chronic Pain. 2014.Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;Evidence Report/Technology Assessments, No. 218. AHRQ Publication No. 14-E005-EF.
6. Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain—United States, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65:1–49.
7. Lee LA, Domino KB. The Closed Claims Project. Has it influenced anesthetic practice and outcome? Anesthesiol Clin North America. 2002;20:485–501.
8. Fitzgibbon DR, Rathmell JP, Michna E, Stephens LS, Posner KL, Domino KB. Malpractice claims associated with medication management for chronic pain. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:948–956.
9. Abrecht CR, Greenberg P, Song E, Urman RD, Rathmell JP. A contemporary medicolegal analysis of implanted devices for chronic pain management. Anesth Analg. 2017;124:1304–1310.
10. Sowka M. Malpractice Claims: Final Compilation. 1980.Brookfield, WI: National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
11. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practice and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B. 1995;57:289–300.
12. Fitzgibbon DR, Rathmell JP, Michna E, Stephens LS, Posner KL, Domino KB. Malpractice claims associated with medication management for chronic pain. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:948–956.
13. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41:1149–1160.
14. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–191.
15. Pollak KA, Stephens LS, Posner KL, et al. Trends in pain medicine liability. Anesthesiology. 2015;123:1133–1141.
    16. Walker JM, Farney RJ, Rhondeau SM, et al. Chronic opioid use is a risk factor for the development of central sleep apnea and ataxic breathing. J Clin Sleep Med. 2007;3:455–461.
    17. Filiatrault ML, Chauny JM, Daoust R, Roy MP, Denis R, Lavigne G. Medium increased risk for central sleep apnea but not obstructive sleep apnea in long-term opioid users: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Sleep Med. 2016;12:617–625.
    18. Rose AR, Catcheside PG, McEvoy RD, et al. Sleep disordered breathing and chronic respiratory failure in patients with chronic pain on long term opioid therapy. J Clin Sleep Med. 2014;10:847–852.
    19. Chaparro LE, Furlan AD, Deshpande A, Mailis-Gagnon A, Atlas S, Turk DC. Opioids compared with placebo or other treatments for chronic low back pain: an update of the Cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:556–563.
    20. Lee LA, Caplan RA, Stephens LS, et al. Postoperative opioid-induced respiratory depression: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 2015;122:659–665.
    21. Edlund MJ, Steffick D, Hudson T, Harris KM, Sullivan M. Risk factors for clinically recognized opioid abuse and dependence among veterans using opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Pain. 2007;129:355–362.
    22. Wasan AD, Butler SF, Budman SH, Benoit C, Fernandez K, Jamison RN. Psychiatric history and psychologic adjustment as risk factors for aberrant drug-related behavior among patients with chronic pain. Clin J Pain. 2007;23:307–315.
    23. Boscarino JA, Rukstalis M, Hoffman SN, et al. Risk factors for drug dependence among out-patients on opioid therapy in a large US health-care system. Addiction. 2010;105:1776–1782.
    24. Fleming MF, Balousek SL, Klessig CL, Mundt MP, Brown DD. Substance use disorders in a primary care sample receiving daily opioid therapy. J Pain. 2007;8:573–582.
    25. Lanier WA, Johnson EM, Rolfs RT, Friedrichs MD, Grey TC. Risk factors for prescription opioid-related death, Utah, 2008-2009. Pain Med. 2012;13:1580–1589.
    26. Ray WA, Chung CP, Murray KT, Hall K, Stein CM. Prescription of long-acting opioids and mortality in patients with chronic noncancer pain. JAMA. 2016;315:2415–2423.
    27. Zedler B, Xie L, Wang L, et al. Risk factors for serious prescription opioid-related toxicity or overdose among Veterans Health Administration patients. Pain Med. 2014;15:1911–1929.
    28. Jones CM, McAninch JK. Emergency department visits and overdose deaths from combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49:493–501.
    29. Jones CM, Mack KA, Paulozzi LJ. Pharmaceutical overdose deaths, United States, 2010. JAMA. 2013;309:657–659.
    30. Ray WA, Chung CP, Murray KT, Cooper WO, Hall K, Stein CM. Out-of-hospital mortality among patients receiving methadone for noncancer pain. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:420–427.
    31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: risk for overdose from methadone used for pain relief—United States, 1999–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61:493–497.
    32. Luty J, O’Gara C, Sessay M. Is methadone too dangerous for opiate addiction? BMJ. 2005;331:1352–1353.
      33. Kaye AD, Jones MR, Kaye AM, et al. Prescription opioid abuse in chronic pain: an updated review of opioid abuse predictors and strategies to curb opioid abuse: part 1. Pain Physician. 2017;20:S93–S109.
      34. Kaye AD, Jones MR, Kaye AM, et al. Prescription opioid abuse in chronic pain: an updated review of opioid abuse predictors and strategies to curb opioid abuse (part 2). Pain Physician. 2017;20:S111–S133.
      35. US Food and Drug Administration. Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Extended-Release and Long-Acting Opioids. 2015.Silver Spring, MD: FDA.
      36. Webster LR, Webster RM. Predicting aberrant behaviors in opioid-treated patients: preliminary validation of the Opioid Risk Tool. Pain Med. 2005;6:432–442.
      37. Hirsh HL. Patient abandonment: from a legal perspective–a new series on physician-patient relationships. Urban Health. 1985;14:34–39.
      38. Fishbain DA, Lewis JE, Gao J. Medical malpractice allegations of iatrogenic addiction in chronic opioid analgesic therapy: forensic case reports. Pain Med. 2010;11:1537–1545.
      39. Fishbain DA, Lewis JE, Gao J, Cole B, Rosomoff RS. Alleged medical abandonment in chronic opioid analgesic therapy: case report. Pain Med. 2009;10:722–729.
      40. Webster LR, Cochella S, Dasgupta N, et al. An analysis of the root causes for opioid-related overdose deaths in the United States. Pain Med. 2011;12suppl 2S26–S35.
      41. Rich BA, Webster LR. A review of forensic implications of opioid prescribing with examples from malpractice cases involving opioid-related overdose. Pain Med. 2011;12suppl 2S59–S65.
      42. Cheney FW. The American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project: what have we learned, how has it affected practice, and how will it affect practice in the future? Anesthesiology. 1999;91:552–556.
      © 2017 International Anesthesia Research Society