Can Patient-centered Education and Pain Management Delivered by Coaches Improve Pain Outcomes After Orthopaedic Trauma? A Randomized Trial
Authors: Giordano Nicholas A. , Und Aspang Jesse Seilern , Baker J’Lynn , Holder Carter , Cantu Nicholas , Checo Grace , Rice Cammie Wolf , Barrell Bailey , Wallace Michelle , Steck Alaina R. , Schenker Mara L. 
Published: June 2024

Background

Pain after orthopaedic trauma is complex, and many patients who have experienced orthopaedic trauma are at increased risk for prolonged opioid utilization after the injury. Patient-centered interventions capable of delivering enhanced education and opioid-sparing pain management approaches must be implemented and evaluated in trauma care settings to improve pain outcomes and minimize opioid-related risks.

Questions/purposes

Does personalized pain education and management delivered by coaches (1) improve pain-related outcomes, (2) reduce opioid consumption, and (3) improve patient-reported outcome measures (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] scores) compared to written discharge instructions on pain management and opioid safety?

Methods

This clinical trial aimed to examine the effect of a personalized pain education and management intervention, delivered by paraprofessional coaches, on pain-related outcomes and opioid consumption compared with usual care (written discharge instructions on pain management and opioid safety). Between February 2021 and September 2022, 212 patients were randomized to the intervention (49% [104]) or control group (51% [108]). A total of 31% (32 of 104) and 47% (51 of 108) in those groups, respectively, were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 12 weeks or had incomplete datasets, leaving 69% (72 of 104) and 53% (57 of 108) for analysis in the intervention and control group, respectively. Patients randomized to the intervention worked with the paraprofessional coaches throughout hospitalization after their orthopaedic injury and at their 2-, 6-, and 12-week visits with the surgical team after discharge to implement mindfulness-based practices and nonpharmacological interventions. Most participants in the final sample of 129 identified as Black (73% [94 of 129]) and women (56% [72 of 129]), the mean Injury Severity score was 8 ± 4, and one-third of participants were at medium to high risk for an opioid-use disorder based on the Opioid Risk Tool. Participants completed surveys during hospitalization and at the 2-, 6-, and 12-week follow-up visits. Surveys included average pain intensity scores over the past 24 hours measured on the pain numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 and PROMIS measures (physical functioning, pain interference, sleep disturbance). Opioid utilization, measured as daily morphine milligram equivalents, was collected from the electronic health record, and demographic and clinical characteristics were collected from self-report surveys. Groups were compared in terms of mean pain scores at the 12-week follow-up, daily morphine milligram equivalents both during inpatient and at discharge, and mean PROMIS scores at 12 weeks of follow-up. Additionally, differences in the proportion of participants in each group achieving minimum clinically important differences (MCID) on pain and PROMIS scores were examined. For pain scores, an MCID of 2 points on the pain numeric rating scale assessing past 24-hour pain intensity was utilized.

Results

We found no difference between the intervention and control in terms of mean pain score at 12 weeks nor in the proportions of patients who achieved the MCID of 2 points for 24-hour average pain scores (85% [61 of 72] versus 72% [41 of 57], respectively, OR 2.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9 to 5.3]; p = 0.08). No differences were noted in daily morphine milligram equivalents utilized between the intervention and control groups during hospitalization, at discharge, or in prescription refills. Similarly, we observed no differences in the proportions of patients in the intervention and control groups who achieved the MCID on PROMIS Physical Function (81% [58 of 72] versus 63% [36 of 57], respectively, OR 2.2 [95% CI 0.9 to 5.2]; p = 0.06). We saw no differences in the proportions of patients who achieved the MCID on PROMIS Sleep Disturbance between the intervention and control groups (58% [42 of 72] versus 47% [27 of 57], respectively, OR 1.4 [95% CI 0.7 to 3.0]; p = 0.31). The proportion of patients who achieved the MCID on PROMIS Pain Interference scores did not differ between the intervention and the control groups (39% [28 of 72] versus 37% [21 of 57], respectively, OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.5 to 2.1]; p = 0.95).

Conclusion

In this trial, we observed no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of pain outcomes, opioid medication utilization, or patient-reported outcomes after orthopaedic trauma. However, future targeted research with diverse samples of patients at increased risk for poor postoperative outcomes is warranted to ascertain a potentially meaningful patient perceived effect on pain outcomes after working with coaches. Other investigators interested in this interventional approach may consider the coach program as a framework at their institutions to increase access to evidence-based nonpharmacological interventions among patients who are at increased risk for poor postoperative pain outcomes. Smaller, more focused programs connecting patients to coaches to learn about nonpharmacological pain management interventions may deliver a larger impact on patient’s recovery and outcomes.

Level of Evidence

Level I, therapeutic study.