Discussing Opioid Risks With Patients to Reduce Misuse and Abuse: Assessment Answer
Quality of this journal can be described as good as it is easily understandable and there is no use of complex language. It can be understood by a person with limited knowledge of nursing and healthcare. Writers of this particular journal are Joachim O. Hero, Caitlin McMurtry, John Benson, and Robert Blendon. Joachim O. Hero works in Interfaculty Initiative in Health Policy at Harvard University whereas the other three authors work in the department of health policy and Management at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (Hero, McMurtry, Benson & Blendon, 2016). On the basis of their job position, it can be said that they are qualified to present their view on the subject matter under consideration. All of the author under consideration has published two different articles in relation to the health and medical sector but they have not published any articles is specifically discussing the risk of opioid use with patients. External links- Joachim O. Hero (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., Caitlin McMurtry (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., SM John Benson (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., & Robert Blendon (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Authors have not provided any kind of food background in relation to subject matter under consideration i.e. misuse an impact of opioid use among patients. Authors have provided an abstract of the report and a brief introduction of the subject matter. Generally, the background of the subject matter is provided with the help of a literature review. The literature review provides an analysis of different viewpoints provided by different authors in the subject matter under consideration. This type of literature review helps in providing a viewpoint that is different from that of the author. For effective and efficient background study of the subject matter, it is important to review at least 6 to 10 literature was published by different authors. This literature should be contrasting to each other and conclusive analysis should be made on the basis of this literature review by authors (Hero, McMurtry, Benson & Blendon, 2016).
The overall objective of this study is to identify the risk of long term use disorder among the patients that were prescribed opioid. The primary focus of this report was to discuss the results of two population represented survey in order to identify the subject matter under consideration. Likely research questions in this scenario would be as follows-
- What are the chances of patients are getting addicted to the opioid period after it was prescribed by a physician for a limited period of time?
- What are the primary factors that result in such addiction to opioid?
- Whether physician to have warned patient in relation to full long term addiction with relation to opioid?
Two types of surveys were conducted by the researcher in this subject matter. The first survey was conducted on a national population whereas the second survey was conducted on the Population of Massachusetts. Mode of collecting data in this scenario was a telephonic interview. All the respondents that said that they were prescribed a heavy dosage of opioid in the last two years were selected in the final sample. The data was collected from 216 in National survey and 169 in the sample collected from the Massachusetts population (Hero, McMurtry, Benson & Blendon, 2016). It can be said that the data collected is reliable and valid as was collected by Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health and the Boston Globe. The method used for data analysis in this scenario was "survey (R 3.31)8 and effects (R 3.1-1)9 packages".
Data could easily be duplicated by other authors as there was no codebook used by the researchers. In addition to that data is publicly available and can be used. Researchers have also published unadjusted results for the purpose of comparison with adjusted results for other authors. Output data is also available for review by other researchers and users of this report. On an overall analysis, it can be said that researchers have made all the data collected by them was public and it can easily be duplicated by other authors. Researchers have also fit automatic alternate specifications in order to maintain the sensitivity of the results. Control variables used by researchers in the collection of primary data was sex age race income status and region.
The sample size used in the given scenario was 216 for National survey and 169 for the sample collected from the population of Massachusetts. There was no specific method used by researchers for turn off this sample. Data was collected with the help of a telephonic review and it was identified that the response rate in case of national survey was 8% whereas the response rate in the case of Massachusetts sample was 15%. This response rate resulted in completed interviews of 1033 and 810 respectively. Out of this sample, the researcher identified the respondent that reported that strong prescription painkillers were provided to them in the last two years. Therefore it can be said that there was no specific planning done by researchers to come at the sample of 216 and 169 respondents. There is no specific description of the population provided by researchers as only two factors that are considered by them are that there is should be more than 18 and they should have been prescribed strong medications in last two year (Hero, McMurtry, Benson & Blendon, 2016). After analyzing the sample size it can be said that it was enough for making analysis and recommendations in the subject matter.
Results identified by authors after conducting a proper analysis of the data was related to identifying the relationship between risk of long term opioid addiction with a discussion with a physician for risk of prescription drug addiction.
The population of Massachusetts recalled the discussion in relation to long term risk drug abuse in relation to or poet with their positions lesser as compared to the national population. According to the data analysis 36% of the Massachusetts population record discussing such matter as compared to 61% on the national level. Clinical question asked in this report was whether physicians and doctors are discussing the risk of prescription drug addiction (Hero, McMurtry, Benson & Blendon, 2016). Results of this report have clearly described the percentage of patients that were provided such discussion.
The results will definitely help in caring for patients as opioid use has negative long term impact on patients. Use of opioid can easily be converted into addiction and drug overdose has become one of the primary reason for death in the United States of America. On the basis of this report, it can be said that it is very important for all positions and doctors to warn patients about the risk of addiction to opioid taken by them during the treatment. If any person has past history in relation to addiction and drug abuse then such patient can make informed decisions in relation to use of appeared in treatment (Hero, McMurtry, Benson & Blendon, 2016). The alternative substance can be used in treatment where the risk of addiction is lower as compared to opioid.
The primary purpose of article 2 was to identify whether the discussion was conducted between patient and doctors in relation to risk of long term use disorders while prescribing opioid analgesics. Researchers in this report has collected primary data from patients through telephonic interviews. The sample was taken with the help of two different population-representative surveys. The first population was National Population whereas the second population was Massachusetts population.
This research has identified that the discussions in relation to the misuse of opioid with a physician so was a 60% less in the case of the Massachusetts population as compared to National Population. On the basis of the state, it can be said that doctors in a physician in Massachusetts should be provided instructions for compulsory discussion with patients while prescribing opioid analgesics. This will help patients to make informed decisions in relation to their treatment.
Article 1- Main purpose of article one was to identify the effect that epidural infusion bonus delivery rate has on the duration of labor. 210 women were categorized into low (108) and high rate group (102) for the purpose of collecting data in this research. Results of this report have identified that time duration required for labor was not increased to with the use of high rate epidural bolus administration (Lange et.al, 2018).
Article 3- Main purpose of this research was to identify whether hospital and nursing staff are using systematic thinking while providing services to the patient. According to this research, around 1 million patient die in hospital worldwide due to lack of a systematic thinking and errors that can be avoided easily. This research was conducted with the help of secondary data and around 38 research studies were reviewed by the author. This research has identified there is a need of incorporating systematic thinking in nursing practices (Phillips, Stalter, Winegardner, Wiggs & Jauch, 2018).