Dataset Information

Dental opioid prescribing practices and risk mitigation strategy implementation: Identification of potential targets for provider-level intervention.

ABSTRACT: Given the regular use of immediate-release opioids for dental pain management, as well as documented opioid misuse among dental patients, the dental visit may provide a viable point of intervention to screen, identify, and educate patients regarding the risks associated with prescription opioid misuse and diversion. The aims of this statewide survey of dental practitioners were to assess (a) awareness of the scope of prescription opioid misuse and diversion; (b) current opioid prescribing practices; (c) use of and opinions regarding risk mitigation strategies; and (d) use and perceived utility of drug monitoring programs.This cross-sectional study surveyed dentists (N = 87) participating in statewide professional and alumni organizations. Dentists were invited via e-mail and listserv announcement to participate in a one-time, online, 59-item, self-administered survey.A majority of respondents reported prescribing opioids (n = 66; 75.8%). A minority of respondents (n = 38; 44%) reported regularly screening for current prescription drug abuse. Dentists reported low rates of requesting prior medical records (n = 5; 5.8%). Only 38% (n = 33) of respondents had ever accessed a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP), and only 4 (4.7%) consistently used a PDMP. Dentists reporting prior training in drug diversion were significantly more likely to have accessed their PDMP, P < .01. Interest in continuing education regarding assessment of prescription drug abuse/diversion and use of drug monitoring programs was high.Although most dentists received training related to prescribing opioids, findings identified a gap in existing dental training in the assessment/identification of prescription opioid misuse and diversion. Findings also identified gaps in the implementation of recommended risk mitigation strategies, including screening for prescription drug abuse, consistent provision of patient education, and use of a PDMP prior to prescribing opioids.

SUBMITTER: McCauley JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4816206 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan-Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Dental opioid prescribing practices and risk mitigation strategy implementation: Identification of potential targets for provider-level intervention.

McCauley Jenna L JL Leite Renata S RS Melvin Cathy L CL Fillingim Roger B RB Brady Kathleen T KT

Substance abuse 20151216 1

<h4>Background</h4>Given the regular use of immediate-release opioids for dental pain management, as well as documented opioid misuse among dental patients, the dental visit may provide a viable point of intervention to screen, identify, and educate patients regarding the risks associated with prescription opioid misuse and diversion. The aims of this statewide survey of dental practitioners were to assess (a) awareness of the scope of prescription opioid misuse and diversion; (b) current opioid ...[more]

PMID: 26675303

Similar Datasets

Project description:The prescription of opioid analgesics by dental professionals is widespread in the United States. Policy makers, government agencies, and professional organizations consider this phenomenon a growing public health concern. This study examined trends in the prescription of opioid analgesics for adults by dental professionals and associated factors in the United States. Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (1996-2013) were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were calculated separately for each year. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the overall trend during the period with and without adjusting for dental procedures and personal characteristics. Survey weights were incorporated to handle the sampling design. The prescription of opioid analgesics following dental care increased over time. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors, source of payment, and type of dental procedure, the odds ratio (OR) of prescribing opioid analgesics following a dental visit per each decade difference was 1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.38). Surgical, root canal, and implant procedures had the highest rates of opioid prescriptions and the greatest increases in rates over the study period. After adjusting for personal characteristics and type of dental procedure, the OR of receiving a prescription for opioids comparing blacks, Asians, and Hispanics to whites was 1.29 (95% CI, 1.17-1.41), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.47-0.70), and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.95), respectively. Opioid analgesic prescriptions following dental visits increased over time after adjusting for personal characteristics and type of dental procedure. The odds of receiving a prescription for opioids were higher for certain racial/ethnic minority groups. Knowledge Transfer Statement: This study highlights dental professionals prescribing practices of opioid analgesics by following dental treatments in the United States. With this knowledge, appropriate guidelines, protocols, and policies can be developed and implemented to address any inappropriate prescribing practices of opioid analgesics. In addition, this information could lead to an improvement in the prescribing practices of dental professionals and to evidence-based therapeutic decision making.

Project description:ImportanceOverprescribing of opioids has generated and sustains the opioid overdose epidemic. Health systems have a responsibility to lead the effort to reduce overprescribing.ObjectiveTo measure the effects of multilevel interventions on opioid prescribing within a health system.Design, setting, and participantsQuality improvement study comparing a 6-month preintervention baseline with a 16-month postintervention period ending in April 2018. Inpatient and outpatient clinical activity within a regional health system including an acute care hospital, same-day surgery, and outpatient clinics. Opioid prescribing activity by hundreds of clinicians involving over a million clinical encounters was measured using a health system's electronic medical record.InterventionsMultiple parallel interventions in different domains, including prescriber education and accountability, enhanced oversight via measurement of individual prescribers, tools to right-size postoperative discharge prescriptions, reduction of default amounts on standard opioid prescription orders, and professionally written patient and public education about opioid risks and alternatives.Main outcomes and measuresMorphine milligram equivalents (MME) per encounter per month, MME per opioid prescription, and rate of opioid prescriptions (opioid prescriptions per encounter per month).ResultsMore than 44?000 clinical encounters per month were recorded. All baseline trends were not significantly different from 0. Total health system MME per encounter decreased 1.0 MME per encounter per month. At the end of the postintervention observation period, the monthly MME per encounter was 58% lower than the average of the 6-month baseline, the MME per opioid prescription per month was 34% less than the average of the baseline, and the opioid prescription rate was 38% lower than the average of the baseline.Conclusions and relevanceOpioid overprescribing was reduced with multifocal interventions targeting patient and public demand, creating prescriber awareness and accountability, and creating tools for clinical leadership accountability. The interventions described are adoptable by most organized health systems. Reducing total opioid supply within communities should be given high priority by those with a mission to protect and improve public health.

Project description:IntroductionThe Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has taken a multifaceted approach to addressing opioid safety and promoting system-wide opioid stewardship.AimTo provide a comprehensive evaluation of current opioid prescribing practices and implementation of risk mitigation strategies in VHA.SettingVHA is the largest integrated health care system in the United States.Program descriptionVHA prescribing data in conjunction with implementation of opioid risk mitigation strategies are routinely tracked and reviewed by VHA's Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (including Academic Detailing Service) and the Pain Management Program Office. Additional data are derived from the Partnered Evidence-Based Policy Resource Center (PEPReC) and from a 2019 survey of interdisciplinary pain management teams at VHA facilities. Prescribing data are reported quarterly until first quarter fiscal year 2020 (Q1FY2020), ending December 31, 2019.Program evaluationVHA opioid dispensing peaked in 2012 with 679,376 Veterans receiving an opioid prescription, and when including tramadol, in 2013 with 869,956 Veterans. Since 2012, the number of Veterans dispensed an opioid decreased 56% and co-prescribed opioid/benzodiazepine decreased 83%. Veterans with high-dose opioids (≥ 100 mg morphine equivalent daily dose) decreased 77%. In Q1FY2020, among Veterans on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT), 91.1% had written informed consent, 90.8% had a urine drug screen, and 89.0% had a prescription drug monitoring program query. Naloxone was issued to 217,469 Veterans and resulted in > 1,000 documented overdose reversals. In 2019, interdisciplinary pain management teams were fully designated at 68%, partially designated at 28%, and not available at 4% of 140 VA parent facilities. Fifty percent of Veterans on opioids at very high risk for overdose/suicide received interdisciplinary team reviews.ImplicationsVHA clinicians have greatly reduced their volume of opioid prescribing for pain management and expanded implementation of opioid risk mitigation strategies.ImpactsVHA's integrated health care system provides a model for opioid stewardship and interdisciplinary pain care.

Project description:ImportanceInsurers are increasingly limiting the duration of opioid prescriptions for acute pain. Among patients undergoing surgery, it is unclear whether implementation of these limits is associated with changes in opioid prescribing and patient-reported outcomes, such as pain.ObjectiveTo assess changes in surgical opioid prescribing and patient-reported outcomes after implementation of an opioid prescribing limit by a large commercial insurer in Michigan.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a cross-sectional study with an interrupted time series analysis. Data analyses were conducted from October 1, 2022, to February 28, 2023. The primary data source was the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative, a statewide registry containing data on opioid prescribing and patient-reported outcomes from adults undergoing common general surgical procedures. This registry is linked to Michigan's prescription drug monitoring program database, allowing observation of opioid dispensing. The study included 6045 adults who were covered by the commercial insurer and underwent surgery from January 1, 2017, to October 31, 2019.ExposurePolicy limiting opioid prescriptions to a 5-day supply in February 2018.Main outcomes and measuresAmong all patients, segmented regression models were used to assess for level or slope changes during February 2018 in 3 patient-reported outcomes: pain in the week after surgery (assessed on a scale of 1-4: 1 = none, 2 = minimal, 3 = moderate, and 4 = severe), satisfaction with surgical experience (scale of 0-10, with 10 being the highest satisfaction), and amount of regret regarding undergoing surgery (scale of 1-5, with 1 being the highest level of regret). Among patients with a discharge opioid prescription and a dispensed opioid prescription (prescription filled within 3 days of discharge), additional outcomes included total morphine milligram equivalents in these prescriptions, a standardized measure of opioid volume.ResultsAmong the 6045 patients included in the study, mean (SD) age was 48.7 (12.6) years and 3595 (59.5%) were female. Limit implementation was not associated with changes in patient-reported satisfaction or regret and was associated with only a slight level decrease in patient-reported pain score (-0.15 [95% CI, -0.26 to -0.03]). Among 4396 patients (72.7%) with a discharge and dispensed opioid prescription, limit implementation was associated with a -22.3 (95% CI, -32.8 to -11.9) and -26.1 (95% CI, -40.9 to -11.3) level decrease in monthly mean total morphine milligram equivalents of discharge and dispensed opioid prescriptions, respectively. These decreases corresponded approximately to 3 to 3.5 pills containing 5 mg of oxycodone.ConclusionsThis cross-sectional analysis of data from adults undergoing general surgical procedures found that implementation of an insurer's limit was associated with modest reductions in opioid prescribing but not with worsened patient-reported outcomes. Whether these findings generalize to other procedures warrants further study.

Project description:Background/Aims De-implementation, including the removal or reduction of unnecessary or inappropriate prescribing, is crucial to ensure patients receive appropriate evidence-based health care. The utilization of de-implementation efforts is contingent on the quality of strategy reporting. To further understand effective ways to de-implement medical practices, specification of behavioural targets and components of de-implementation strategies are required. This paper aims to critically analyse how well the behavioural targets and strategy components, in studies that focused on de-implementing unnecessary or inappropriate prescribing in secondary healthcare settings, were reported.MethodsA supplementary analysis of studies included in a recently published review of de-implementation studies was conducted. Article text was coded verbatim to two established specification frameworks. Behavioural components were coded deductively to the five elements of the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework. Strategy components were mapped to the nine elements of the Proctor's 'measuring implementation strategies' framework.ResultsThe behavioural components of low-value prescribing, as coded to the AACTT framework, were generally specified well. However, the Actor and Time components were often vague or not well reported. Specification of strategy components, as coded to the Proctor framework, were less well reported. Proctor's Actor, Action target: specifying targets, Dose and Justification elements were not well reported or varied in the amount of detail offered. We also offer suggestions of additional specifications to make, such as the 'interactions' participants have with a strategy.ConclusionSpecification of behavioural targets and components of de-implementation strategies for prescribing practices can be accommodated by the AACTT and Proctor frameworks when used in conjunction. These essential details are required to understand, replicate and successfully de-implement unnecessary or inappropriate prescribing. In general, standardisation in the reporting quality of these components is required to replicate any de-implementation efforts.Trial registrationNot registered.

Dataset Information

Dental opioid prescribing practices and risk mitigation strategy implementation: Identification of potential targets for provider-level intervention.

Publications

Dental opioid prescribing practices and risk mitigation strategy implementation: Identification of potential targets for provider-level intervention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets