User login
Postop analgesia in Saudi Arabia and the United States: A resident’s perspective
I had the opportunity to experience first-hand acute postoperative pain management in both the United States and Saudi Arabia. In this article, I discuss some of the differences in how postop pain is managed in each location, potential reasons for these differences, how they may impact patients over time, and the psychiatrist’s role in raising awareness about the hazards of overprescribing analgesic medications.
Vast differences in postop opioid prescribing
From personal observation and literature review, I was appalled by the amount of oxycodone tablets patients are typically discharged home with after a surgical procedure in the United States. Depending on the extent of the surgical procedure, opioid-naïve patients were routinely discharged with 40 to 120 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. A ventral hernia repair or laparotomy was on the high end of how much oxycodone was provided, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair was on the low end. At least one study has supported this observation, finding a wide variation and excessive doses of opioids prescribed postop.1 Notably, among opioids obtained by postsurgical patients, 42% to 71% of all tablets went unused.2 Nevertheless, prescribing in this manner became the standard for postop pain management—possibly in an effort to maximize patient satisfaction on surveys. Additionally, marketing and promotion by the pharmaceutical industry appears to have considerably amplified the prescription, sales, and availability of opioids.3
Signing those prescriptions always left a bad taste in my mouth out of concern for the potential for initiating chronic opioid use.4 Personally, I would prescribe the lowest reasonable number of narcotic tablets for my patients, along with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, knowing that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are sufficient for treating postop pain and will decrease opioid requirements, therefore minimizing opiate-induced adverse events.5 Overtreatment of pain with narcotics as first-line therapy is particularly problematic when treating postop pain in children after minor procedures, such as an umbilical hernia repair.Allowing children to resort to a narcotic analgesic agent as a first-line therapy had the potential to develop into an opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life if environmental factors tipped the scales.6
In the hospital in Saudi Arabia where I initially trained, surgery residents were not permitted to prescribe narcotics. The standard of care was to discharge patients with acetaminophen and ibuprofen. In cases where there was an indication for pain treatment with narcotics, stringent regulations were in place. For example, in my experience, which is corroborated by one study,6 special “narcotic forms” are required in the Middle East. In most of these countries, access to these forms is restricted.7 Moreover, pharmacists would only accept this special form when attested to by the surgery consultant (the equivalent of an attending physician in the United States). These consultants would typically write a prescription for 9 to 15 oxycodone 5 mg tablets. Patients receiving such medications were closely watched and followed up in the surgery clinic 3 to 5 days after discharge. Patients were also required to fill out a form detailing their contact information, including their home address and national ID number, to be able to pick up their prescription. Furthermore, apart from 2 Middle East countries, opioids were only available from hospital pharmacies, which were independent of the general hospital pharmacy in location and staff training.8
The psychiatrist’s role
Adapting similar stringent practices for prescribing narcotics in the United States might reduce 1 risk factor for OUD in postop patients. Surgeons attempt to provide the best care by maximizing analgesia, but psychiatrists see firsthand the consequences of overprescribing, and play a direct role in managing patients’ OUDs. As psychiatrists, we have a duty to continue to raise awareness and alert other clinicians about the hazards of overprescribing narcotic analgesic agents.
1. Hill MV, McMahon ML, Stucke RS, et al. Wide variation and excessive dosage of opioid prescriptions for common general surgical procedures. Ann Surg. 2017;265(4):709-714.
2. Bicket MC, Long JJ, Pronovost PJ, et al. Prescription opioid analgesics commonly unused after surgery: a systematic review. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(11):1066-1071.
3. Van Zee A. The promotion and marketing of oxycontin: commercial triumph, public health tragedy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(2):221-227.
4. Sun EC, Darnall BD, Baker LC, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for chronic opioid use among opioid-naive patients in the postoperative period. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9):1286-1293.
5. Gupta A, Bah M. NSAIDs in the treatment of postoperative pain. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2016;20(11):62. doi: 10.1007/s11916-016-0591-7
6. Pollini RA, Banta-Green CJ, Cuevas-Mota J, et al. Problematic use of prescription-type opioids prior to heroin use among young heroin injectors. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2011;2(1):173-180.
7. Cleary J, Silbermann M, Scholten W, et al. Formulary availability and regulatory barriers to accessibility of opioids for cancer pain in the Middle East: a report from the Global Opioid Policy Initiative (GOPI). Ann Oncol. 2013;24 Suppl 11:xi51-xi59. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt503
8. Lankenau SE, Teti M, Silva K, et al. Initiation into prescription opioid misuse amongst young injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 2012;23(1):37-44.
I had the opportunity to experience first-hand acute postoperative pain management in both the United States and Saudi Arabia. In this article, I discuss some of the differences in how postop pain is managed in each location, potential reasons for these differences, how they may impact patients over time, and the psychiatrist’s role in raising awareness about the hazards of overprescribing analgesic medications.
Vast differences in postop opioid prescribing
From personal observation and literature review, I was appalled by the amount of oxycodone tablets patients are typically discharged home with after a surgical procedure in the United States. Depending on the extent of the surgical procedure, opioid-naïve patients were routinely discharged with 40 to 120 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. A ventral hernia repair or laparotomy was on the high end of how much oxycodone was provided, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair was on the low end. At least one study has supported this observation, finding a wide variation and excessive doses of opioids prescribed postop.1 Notably, among opioids obtained by postsurgical patients, 42% to 71% of all tablets went unused.2 Nevertheless, prescribing in this manner became the standard for postop pain management—possibly in an effort to maximize patient satisfaction on surveys. Additionally, marketing and promotion by the pharmaceutical industry appears to have considerably amplified the prescription, sales, and availability of opioids.3
Signing those prescriptions always left a bad taste in my mouth out of concern for the potential for initiating chronic opioid use.4 Personally, I would prescribe the lowest reasonable number of narcotic tablets for my patients, along with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, knowing that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are sufficient for treating postop pain and will decrease opioid requirements, therefore minimizing opiate-induced adverse events.5 Overtreatment of pain with narcotics as first-line therapy is particularly problematic when treating postop pain in children after minor procedures, such as an umbilical hernia repair.Allowing children to resort to a narcotic analgesic agent as a first-line therapy had the potential to develop into an opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life if environmental factors tipped the scales.6
In the hospital in Saudi Arabia where I initially trained, surgery residents were not permitted to prescribe narcotics. The standard of care was to discharge patients with acetaminophen and ibuprofen. In cases where there was an indication for pain treatment with narcotics, stringent regulations were in place. For example, in my experience, which is corroborated by one study,6 special “narcotic forms” are required in the Middle East. In most of these countries, access to these forms is restricted.7 Moreover, pharmacists would only accept this special form when attested to by the surgery consultant (the equivalent of an attending physician in the United States). These consultants would typically write a prescription for 9 to 15 oxycodone 5 mg tablets. Patients receiving such medications were closely watched and followed up in the surgery clinic 3 to 5 days after discharge. Patients were also required to fill out a form detailing their contact information, including their home address and national ID number, to be able to pick up their prescription. Furthermore, apart from 2 Middle East countries, opioids were only available from hospital pharmacies, which were independent of the general hospital pharmacy in location and staff training.8
The psychiatrist’s role
Adapting similar stringent practices for prescribing narcotics in the United States might reduce 1 risk factor for OUD in postop patients. Surgeons attempt to provide the best care by maximizing analgesia, but psychiatrists see firsthand the consequences of overprescribing, and play a direct role in managing patients’ OUDs. As psychiatrists, we have a duty to continue to raise awareness and alert other clinicians about the hazards of overprescribing narcotic analgesic agents.
I had the opportunity to experience first-hand acute postoperative pain management in both the United States and Saudi Arabia. In this article, I discuss some of the differences in how postop pain is managed in each location, potential reasons for these differences, how they may impact patients over time, and the psychiatrist’s role in raising awareness about the hazards of overprescribing analgesic medications.
Vast differences in postop opioid prescribing
From personal observation and literature review, I was appalled by the amount of oxycodone tablets patients are typically discharged home with after a surgical procedure in the United States. Depending on the extent of the surgical procedure, opioid-naïve patients were routinely discharged with 40 to 120 tablets of oxycodone 5 mg. A ventral hernia repair or laparotomy was on the high end of how much oxycodone was provided, and a laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair was on the low end. At least one study has supported this observation, finding a wide variation and excessive doses of opioids prescribed postop.1 Notably, among opioids obtained by postsurgical patients, 42% to 71% of all tablets went unused.2 Nevertheless, prescribing in this manner became the standard for postop pain management—possibly in an effort to maximize patient satisfaction on surveys. Additionally, marketing and promotion by the pharmaceutical industry appears to have considerably amplified the prescription, sales, and availability of opioids.3
Signing those prescriptions always left a bad taste in my mouth out of concern for the potential for initiating chronic opioid use.4 Personally, I would prescribe the lowest reasonable number of narcotic tablets for my patients, along with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, knowing that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are sufficient for treating postop pain and will decrease opioid requirements, therefore minimizing opiate-induced adverse events.5 Overtreatment of pain with narcotics as first-line therapy is particularly problematic when treating postop pain in children after minor procedures, such as an umbilical hernia repair.Allowing children to resort to a narcotic analgesic agent as a first-line therapy had the potential to develop into an opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life if environmental factors tipped the scales.6
In the hospital in Saudi Arabia where I initially trained, surgery residents were not permitted to prescribe narcotics. The standard of care was to discharge patients with acetaminophen and ibuprofen. In cases where there was an indication for pain treatment with narcotics, stringent regulations were in place. For example, in my experience, which is corroborated by one study,6 special “narcotic forms” are required in the Middle East. In most of these countries, access to these forms is restricted.7 Moreover, pharmacists would only accept this special form when attested to by the surgery consultant (the equivalent of an attending physician in the United States). These consultants would typically write a prescription for 9 to 15 oxycodone 5 mg tablets. Patients receiving such medications were closely watched and followed up in the surgery clinic 3 to 5 days after discharge. Patients were also required to fill out a form detailing their contact information, including their home address and national ID number, to be able to pick up their prescription. Furthermore, apart from 2 Middle East countries, opioids were only available from hospital pharmacies, which were independent of the general hospital pharmacy in location and staff training.8
The psychiatrist’s role
Adapting similar stringent practices for prescribing narcotics in the United States might reduce 1 risk factor for OUD in postop patients. Surgeons attempt to provide the best care by maximizing analgesia, but psychiatrists see firsthand the consequences of overprescribing, and play a direct role in managing patients’ OUDs. As psychiatrists, we have a duty to continue to raise awareness and alert other clinicians about the hazards of overprescribing narcotic analgesic agents.
1. Hill MV, McMahon ML, Stucke RS, et al. Wide variation and excessive dosage of opioid prescriptions for common general surgical procedures. Ann Surg. 2017;265(4):709-714.
2. Bicket MC, Long JJ, Pronovost PJ, et al. Prescription opioid analgesics commonly unused after surgery: a systematic review. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(11):1066-1071.
3. Van Zee A. The promotion and marketing of oxycontin: commercial triumph, public health tragedy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(2):221-227.
4. Sun EC, Darnall BD, Baker LC, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for chronic opioid use among opioid-naive patients in the postoperative period. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9):1286-1293.
5. Gupta A, Bah M. NSAIDs in the treatment of postoperative pain. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2016;20(11):62. doi: 10.1007/s11916-016-0591-7
6. Pollini RA, Banta-Green CJ, Cuevas-Mota J, et al. Problematic use of prescription-type opioids prior to heroin use among young heroin injectors. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2011;2(1):173-180.
7. Cleary J, Silbermann M, Scholten W, et al. Formulary availability and regulatory barriers to accessibility of opioids for cancer pain in the Middle East: a report from the Global Opioid Policy Initiative (GOPI). Ann Oncol. 2013;24 Suppl 11:xi51-xi59. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt503
8. Lankenau SE, Teti M, Silva K, et al. Initiation into prescription opioid misuse amongst young injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 2012;23(1):37-44.
1. Hill MV, McMahon ML, Stucke RS, et al. Wide variation and excessive dosage of opioid prescriptions for common general surgical procedures. Ann Surg. 2017;265(4):709-714.
2. Bicket MC, Long JJ, Pronovost PJ, et al. Prescription opioid analgesics commonly unused after surgery: a systematic review. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(11):1066-1071.
3. Van Zee A. The promotion and marketing of oxycontin: commercial triumph, public health tragedy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(2):221-227.
4. Sun EC, Darnall BD, Baker LC, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for chronic opioid use among opioid-naive patients in the postoperative period. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9):1286-1293.
5. Gupta A, Bah M. NSAIDs in the treatment of postoperative pain. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2016;20(11):62. doi: 10.1007/s11916-016-0591-7
6. Pollini RA, Banta-Green CJ, Cuevas-Mota J, et al. Problematic use of prescription-type opioids prior to heroin use among young heroin injectors. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2011;2(1):173-180.
7. Cleary J, Silbermann M, Scholten W, et al. Formulary availability and regulatory barriers to accessibility of opioids for cancer pain in the Middle East: a report from the Global Opioid Policy Initiative (GOPI). Ann Oncol. 2013;24 Suppl 11:xi51-xi59. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt503
8. Lankenau SE, Teti M, Silva K, et al. Initiation into prescription opioid misuse amongst young injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy. 2012;23(1):37-44.
Why we should be scrutinizing the rising prevalence of adult ADHD
In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), stimulants reduce impulsivity and improve attention and focus. In individuals who do not have this disorder, stimulants are believed to enhance cognition, attention, and physical performance. In this article, I describe how a patient whose intermittent use of stimulants for motivation and cognitive enhancement shaped my approach to the diagnosis of ADHD.
Instant gratification and quick solutions
I asked him questions to confirm the diagnosis, but he rushed to reassure me that he had already been diagnosed with ADHD and had been doing well on dextroamphetamine and amphetamine for many years. I was inclined to question his diagnosis of ADHD after learning of his “as-needed” use of stimulants as brain enhancers. His medical record reflecting the diagnosis of ADHD dated back to when he was a first-year dental student. The diagnosis was based on the patient’s report of procrastination for as long as he could remember. It also hinged on difficulties learning a second language and math being a challenging subject for him. Despite this, he managed to do well in school and earn an undergraduate degree, well enough to later pursue dentistry at a reputable university.
I thought, “Isn’t it normal to lose motivation and have doubts when preparing for a high-stakes exam like the boards? Aren’t these negative thoughts distracting enough to render sustained focus impossible? Doesn’t everyone struggle with procrastination, especially when they need to study? If learning a new language requires devotion, consistency, and sacrifice, isn’t it inherently challenging? Doesn’t good performance in math depend on multiple factors (ie, a strong foundation, cumulative learning, frequent practice), and thus leaves many students struggling?”
This interaction and many similar ones made me scrutinize the diagnosis of ADHD in patients I encounter in clinical settings. We live in a society where instant gratification is cherished, and quick fixes are pursued with little contemplation of pitfalls. Students use stimulants to cram for exams, high-functioning professionals use them to meet deadlines, and athletes use them to enhance performance and improve reaction times. Psychiatry seems to be drawn into the demands of society and may be fueling the “quick-fix” mentality by prescribing stimulants to healthy individuals who want to improve their focus, and then diagnosing them with ADHD to align the prescription with an appropriate diagnosis. Research on the adverse effects of stimulant use in adults is not convincing nor conclusive enough to sway prescribers from denying the average adult patient a stimulant to enhance cognitive function before a high-stakes exam or a critical, career-shaping project if they present with some ADHD traits, which the patient might even hyperbolize to secure the desired prescription. All of this may contribute to the perceived rising prevalence of ADHD among adults.
As for my 30-year-old dental student, I reasoned that continuing his medication, for now, would help me establish rapport and trust. This would allow me to counsel him on the long-term adverse effects of stimulants, and develop a plan to optimize his sleep, focus, and time management skills, eventually improving his cognition and attention naturally. Unfortunately, he did not show up to future appointments after I sent him the refill.
In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), stimulants reduce impulsivity and improve attention and focus. In individuals who do not have this disorder, stimulants are believed to enhance cognition, attention, and physical performance. In this article, I describe how a patient whose intermittent use of stimulants for motivation and cognitive enhancement shaped my approach to the diagnosis of ADHD.
Instant gratification and quick solutions
I asked him questions to confirm the diagnosis, but he rushed to reassure me that he had already been diagnosed with ADHD and had been doing well on dextroamphetamine and amphetamine for many years. I was inclined to question his diagnosis of ADHD after learning of his “as-needed” use of stimulants as brain enhancers. His medical record reflecting the diagnosis of ADHD dated back to when he was a first-year dental student. The diagnosis was based on the patient’s report of procrastination for as long as he could remember. It also hinged on difficulties learning a second language and math being a challenging subject for him. Despite this, he managed to do well in school and earn an undergraduate degree, well enough to later pursue dentistry at a reputable university.
I thought, “Isn’t it normal to lose motivation and have doubts when preparing for a high-stakes exam like the boards? Aren’t these negative thoughts distracting enough to render sustained focus impossible? Doesn’t everyone struggle with procrastination, especially when they need to study? If learning a new language requires devotion, consistency, and sacrifice, isn’t it inherently challenging? Doesn’t good performance in math depend on multiple factors (ie, a strong foundation, cumulative learning, frequent practice), and thus leaves many students struggling?”
This interaction and many similar ones made me scrutinize the diagnosis of ADHD in patients I encounter in clinical settings. We live in a society where instant gratification is cherished, and quick fixes are pursued with little contemplation of pitfalls. Students use stimulants to cram for exams, high-functioning professionals use them to meet deadlines, and athletes use them to enhance performance and improve reaction times. Psychiatry seems to be drawn into the demands of society and may be fueling the “quick-fix” mentality by prescribing stimulants to healthy individuals who want to improve their focus, and then diagnosing them with ADHD to align the prescription with an appropriate diagnosis. Research on the adverse effects of stimulant use in adults is not convincing nor conclusive enough to sway prescribers from denying the average adult patient a stimulant to enhance cognitive function before a high-stakes exam or a critical, career-shaping project if they present with some ADHD traits, which the patient might even hyperbolize to secure the desired prescription. All of this may contribute to the perceived rising prevalence of ADHD among adults.
As for my 30-year-old dental student, I reasoned that continuing his medication, for now, would help me establish rapport and trust. This would allow me to counsel him on the long-term adverse effects of stimulants, and develop a plan to optimize his sleep, focus, and time management skills, eventually improving his cognition and attention naturally. Unfortunately, he did not show up to future appointments after I sent him the refill.
In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), stimulants reduce impulsivity and improve attention and focus. In individuals who do not have this disorder, stimulants are believed to enhance cognition, attention, and physical performance. In this article, I describe how a patient whose intermittent use of stimulants for motivation and cognitive enhancement shaped my approach to the diagnosis of ADHD.
Instant gratification and quick solutions
I asked him questions to confirm the diagnosis, but he rushed to reassure me that he had already been diagnosed with ADHD and had been doing well on dextroamphetamine and amphetamine for many years. I was inclined to question his diagnosis of ADHD after learning of his “as-needed” use of stimulants as brain enhancers. His medical record reflecting the diagnosis of ADHD dated back to when he was a first-year dental student. The diagnosis was based on the patient’s report of procrastination for as long as he could remember. It also hinged on difficulties learning a second language and math being a challenging subject for him. Despite this, he managed to do well in school and earn an undergraduate degree, well enough to later pursue dentistry at a reputable university.
I thought, “Isn’t it normal to lose motivation and have doubts when preparing for a high-stakes exam like the boards? Aren’t these negative thoughts distracting enough to render sustained focus impossible? Doesn’t everyone struggle with procrastination, especially when they need to study? If learning a new language requires devotion, consistency, and sacrifice, isn’t it inherently challenging? Doesn’t good performance in math depend on multiple factors (ie, a strong foundation, cumulative learning, frequent practice), and thus leaves many students struggling?”
This interaction and many similar ones made me scrutinize the diagnosis of ADHD in patients I encounter in clinical settings. We live in a society where instant gratification is cherished, and quick fixes are pursued with little contemplation of pitfalls. Students use stimulants to cram for exams, high-functioning professionals use them to meet deadlines, and athletes use them to enhance performance and improve reaction times. Psychiatry seems to be drawn into the demands of society and may be fueling the “quick-fix” mentality by prescribing stimulants to healthy individuals who want to improve their focus, and then diagnosing them with ADHD to align the prescription with an appropriate diagnosis. Research on the adverse effects of stimulant use in adults is not convincing nor conclusive enough to sway prescribers from denying the average adult patient a stimulant to enhance cognitive function before a high-stakes exam or a critical, career-shaping project if they present with some ADHD traits, which the patient might even hyperbolize to secure the desired prescription. All of this may contribute to the perceived rising prevalence of ADHD among adults.
As for my 30-year-old dental student, I reasoned that continuing his medication, for now, would help me establish rapport and trust. This would allow me to counsel him on the long-term adverse effects of stimulants, and develop a plan to optimize his sleep, focus, and time management skills, eventually improving his cognition and attention naturally. Unfortunately, he did not show up to future appointments after I sent him the refill.
