At one of my recent jail medical clinics, three patients in a row requested prescriptions for gabapentin. One was a patient newly arrived from the Idaho Department of Corrections to be housed at my jail due to prison overcrowding. He had already been prescribed gabapentin at the prison for complaints of low back pain radiating to one leg and wanted me to continue it–forever. The second patient was prescribed gabapentin by his outside practitioner for a boxer’s fracture that had been surgically repaired years ago. The third was prescribed gabapentin at a previous jail due to “nerve damage” from an old gunshot wound to the upper arm (he had a large scar but no functional disability or decreased sensation).
Gabapentin prescriptions for nonspecific musculoskeletal pain have clearly become common in the community and in corrections. These three patients represent only a fraction of the similar cases I see in my jails! I suspect that this gabapentin-mania is being driven by a belief that gabapentin is preferable to prescribing narcotics (though I would not think any of the three patients above would be candidates for narcotics). Gabapentin, in fact, is often prescribed for musculoskeletal pain in my community first line—before NSAIDS and Tylenol, even—and many, like these three patients, subsequently believe that gabapentin is something they will need to take for the rest of their lives.
The problem is that prescribing gabapentin for
musculoskeletal pain is not evidence-based and (in my opinion) bad medicine.
One thing I look forward to each day is looking through my
medical feeds that keep me up to date with medical research. Most of this content ranges from bogus to
unhelpful (in my opinion), but every once in a while, a truly game-changing
article appears. Over the years, I have
noticed that most of the game changing articles are debunking articles. They show that something that is commonly
done in medicine actually has no value.
I love these! Not only do they
improve the medical care of my patients, they also make me more
cost-effective. As I have said before,
the main way to save money in Correctional Medicine is to eliminate (and stop
paying for) medical practices that have no value—or even worse, are harmful to
One thing I always tell practitioners who are beginning a jail medical practice: you’re going to see a lot of withdrawal cases — study up! In particular, since the opioid epidemic hit, the number of patients I’ve seen in my jails withdrawing from heroin and other opioids of all stripes has skyrocketed. I’ve seen enough patients withdrawing from opioids that I think I am reasonably knowledgeable on the topic. Because of this, I was quite surprised when I ran across this sentence in a recent edition of The Medical Letter:
The problem is that although this sentence seems quite self-assured, it is flat out wrong. In fact, it is not just wrong; it is also dangerous. People do die from opioid withdrawal. I know of several such cases from my work with jails. Opioid withdrawal needs to be recognized as a potentially life-threatening condition, just like alcohol withdrawal and benzodiazepine withdrawal.Continue reading →
The analogue insulins were introduced into the United States in the late 1990s and early 2000s. They are called “analogue” insulins because their chemical structure is subtlety different than native human insulin, which gives them different, advantageous properties. Analogue insulins include the short acting insulins Humalog (insulin lispro) and Novolog (insulin aspart) and the long acting insulins Lantus (insulin glargine) and Levemir (insulin detemir).
Since their introduction, the insulin analogues have pretty much taken over the insulin market in the US. That is why I only mentioned human insulins in passing in the JailMedicine post “Insulin Dosing Made Simple.” It is unusual to see patients show up at the jail on any other insulin regimen than analogue insulins, usually Humalog and Lantus. And I have to admit; the analogue insulins are easier to use than human insulins. I like them.
The final major difference between correctional medicine and medicine in the outside world is this: Our patients do not go home. We have a captive audience. Literally! Believe it or not, this is a very important medical point.
Back in my previous life as an ER doc, if I asked a patient to come back tomorrow to be rechecked, I knew that few of them would. It was just too much hassle. They had to find a ride back to the ER (especially hard for the homeless or those without cars), they had to endure another prolonged wait in the ER waiting room. And they would be charged big bucks for another ER visit! No wonder so few of my scheduled follow-ups actually returned!
Once I began to practice in a jail clinic, I soon realized that the situation is much different. The patient I see in clinic today will not go home. She will go to her housing dorm down the hall. I know exactly where she will be tomorrow–or in a week. If I want to see her again tomorrow, I can. In fact, I can reliably see her in follow up anytime I want to.
One might think, “So what? What difference can it possibly make on the practice of medicine that our patients do not go home?” The answer is that this fact does indeed have several important consequences for the practice of clinical medicine. I can think of at least four.Continue reading →
What do you think of the rule for lacerations that says a laceration has to be sutured within six hours or it cannot be sutured at all? At our facility, we send lots of inmates to the ER for simple cuts because the PA isn’t scheduled to be at the facility until the next day. If a cut is 10 hours old, why can’t it be fixed? Where did this rule come from?
Thanks for the question, Kim. The short answer to this question is that that this belief is a myth. Uncomplicated lacerations can, indeed, wait more than 6 hours to be repaired.
“There is a common misconception that all wounds must be either sutured within a few hours or left open and relegated to slow healing and an unsightly scar.” Roberts and Hedges’ Clinical Procedures in Emergency Medicine
We correctional practitioners get to see a wide range of medical practice as we review the medical histories of inmates arriving at our facilities. I myself have seen many prescribing practices that make me scratch my head. One example I have run into repeatedly is the practice at many jails of using hydroxyzine to treat alcohol withdrawal. It turns out that many jails do this. I am not talking about hydroxyzine as an adjunct or an add-on to the primary agent. I am talking about hydroxyzine being used as the primary treatment agent itself.
In my opinion, this is a mistake, and should be stopped.
Now I admit that there is room for dissention in medicine. Not all practitioners practice in the same way and there are many, many areas of medicine where there is no right answer. And it is true that hydroxyzine was used in the 1960’s to treat alcohol withdrawal. However, since then, medicine has discovered superior agents to treat this condition: the benzodiazepines. Today, hydroxyzine is the wrong agent for alcohol withdrawal. If your facility uses hydroxyzine as the primary treatment for alcohol withdrawal, you should change your protocol. There is no legitimate basis for this practice.Continue reading →
I was hoping I could pick your brain (and those of your readers) for ideas regarding Outcome studies.
We are an NCCHC accredited facility with a population of less than 500 inmates. We are required as part of our accreditation to complete 1 Outcome and 1 Process study annually. Outcome studies are more patient specific and Process studies are more global, referring to the process by which we deliver care.
I don’t usually have problems developing Process Studies, but always seem to get stuck on the Outcome studies. I am wondering if you or your viewers might share any suggestions on topics for Outcome studies or comment on topics they have studied in the past.