↓ Skip to main content

Ethical Tensions in the Pain Management of an End-Stage Cancer Patient with Evidence of Opioid Medication Diversion

Overview of attention for article published in HEC Forum, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 184)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Ethical Tensions in the Pain Management of an End-Stage Cancer Patient with Evidence of Opioid Medication Diversion
Published in
HEC Forum, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10730-014-9257-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arvind Venkat, David Kim

Abstract

At the end of life, pain management is commonly a fundamental part of the treatment plan for patients where curative measures are no longer possible. However, the increased recognition of opioid diversion for secondary gain coupled with efforts to treat patients in the home environment towards the end of life creates the potential for ethical dilemmas in the palliative care management of terminal patients in need of continuous pain management. We present the case of an end-stage patient with rectal cancer who required a continuous residential narcotic infusion of fentanyl for pain control due to metastatic disease. His functional status was such that he had poor oral intake and ability to perform other activities of daily living, but was able to live at home with health agency nursing care. The patient presented to this institution with a highly suspect history of having lost his fentanyl infusion in a residential accident and asking for a refill to continue home therapy. The treating physicians had concerns of diversion of the infusion medication by caregivers and were reluctant to continue the therapeutic relationship with the patient. This case exemplifies the tension that can exist between wanting to continue with palliative care management of an end-stage patient and the fear of providers when confronted by evidence of potential diversion of opioid analgesic medications. We elucidate how an ethical framework based on a combination of virtue and narrative/relationship theories with reference to proportionality can guide physicians to a pragmatic resolution of these difficult situations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 28 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 31 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2014.
All research outputs
#5,695,271
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from HEC Forum
#40
of 184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,080
of 262,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEC Forum
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them