Dataset Information

Using routinely collected data to understand and predict adverse outcomes in opioid agonist treatment: Protocol for the Opioid Agonist Treatment Safety (OATS) Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

North America is amid an opioid use epidemic. Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) effectively reduces extramedical opioid use and related harms. As with all pharmacological treatments, there are risks associated with OAT, including fatal overdose. There is a need to better understand risk for adverse outcomes during and after OAT, and for innovative approaches to identifying people at greatest risk of adverse outcomes. The Opioid Agonist Treatment and Safety study aims to address these questions so as to inform the expansion of OAT in the USA.

Methods and analysis

This is a retrospective cohort study using linked, routinely collected health data for all people seeking OAT in New South Wales, Australia, between 2001 and 2017. Linked data include hospitalisation, emergency department presentation, mental health diagnoses, incarceration and mortality. We will use standard regression techniques to model the magnitude and risk factors for adverse outcomes (eg, mortality, unplanned hospitalisation and emergency department presentation, and unplanned treatment cessation) during and after OAT, and machine learning approaches to develop a risk-prediction model.

Ethics and dissemination

This study has been approved by the Population and Health Services Research Ethics Committee (2018HRE0205). Results will be reported in accordance with the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data statement.

SUBMITTER: Larney S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6078240 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using routinely collected data to understand and predict adverse outcomes in opioid agonist treatment: Protocol for the Opioid Agonist Treatment Safety (OATS) Study.

Larney Sarah S Hickman Matthew M Fiellin David A DA Dobbins Timothy T Nielsen Suzanne S Jones Nicola R NR Mattick Richard P RP Ali Robert R Degenhardt Louisa L

BMJ open 20180805 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>North America is amid an opioid use epidemic. Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) effectively reduces extramedical opioid use and related harms. As with all pharmacological treatments, there are risks associated with OAT, including fatal overdose. There is a need to better understand risk for adverse outcomes during and after OAT, and for innovative approaches to identifying people at greatest risk of adverse outcomes. The Opioid Agonist Treatment and Safety study aims to address ...[more]

PMID: 30082370

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with opioid use disorder (OUD) frequently leave the hospital as patient directed discharges (PDDs) because of untreated withdrawal and pain. Short-acting opioids can complement methadone, buprenorphine, and non-opioid adjuvants for withdrawal and pain, however little evidence exists for this approach. We described the safety and preliminary outcomes of short-acting opioid agonist treatment (sOAT) for hospitalized patients with OUD at an academic hospital in Philadelphia, PA.MethodsFrom August 2021 to March 2022, a pharmacist guided implementation of a pilot sOAT protocol consisting of escalating doses of oxycodone or oral hydromorphone scheduled every four hours, intravenous hydromorphone as needed, and non-opioid adjuvants for withdrawal and pain. All patients were encouraged to start methadone or buprenorphine treatment for OUD. We abstracted data from the electronic health record into a secure platform. The primary outcome was safety: administration of naloxone, over-sedation, or a fall. Secondary outcomes were PDDs and respective length of stay (LOS), discharges on methadone or buprenorphine, and discharges with naloxone. We compared secondary outcomes to hospitalizations in the 12 months prior to the index hospitalization among the same cohort.ResultsOf the 23 cases, 13 (56.5%) were female, 19 (82.6%) were 40 years or younger, and 22 (95.7%) identified as White. Twenty-one (91.3%) regularly injected opioids and four (17.3%) were enrolled in methadone or buprenorphine prior to hospitalization. sOAT was administered at median doses of 200-320 morphine milligram equivalents per 24-h period. Naloxone administration was documented once in the operating room, over-sedation was documented once after unsanctioned opioid use, and there were no falls. The PDD rate was 44% with median LOS 5 days (compared to PDD rate 69% with median LOS 3 days for prior admissions), 65% of sOAT cases were discharged on buprenorphine or methadone (compared to 33% for prior admissions), and 65% of sOAT cases were discharged with naloxone (compared to 19% for prior admissions).ConclusionsPilot implementation of sOAT was safe. Compared to prior admissions in the same cohort, the PDD rate was lower, LOS for PDDs was longer, and more patients were discharged on buprenorphine or methadone and with naloxone, however efficacy for these secondary outcomes remains to be established.

Project description:Introduction and objectiveReceipt of opioid agonist treatment during early and late pregnancy for opioid use disorder may relate to varying perinatal risks. We aimed to assess the effect of time-varying prenatal exposure to opioid agonist treatment using buprenorphine or methadone on adverse neonatal and pregnancy outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with opioid use disorder using Rhode Island Medicaid claims data and vital statistics during 2008-16. Time-varying exposure was evaluated in early (0-20 weeks) and late (≥ 21 weeks) pregnancy. Marginal structural models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were applied.ResultsOf 400 eligible pregnancies, 85 and 137 individuals received buprenorphine and methadone, respectively, during early pregnancy. Compared with 152 untreated pregnancies with opioid use disorders, methadone exposure in both periods was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-5.95), low birth weight (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI 1.34-6.66), neonatal intensive care unit admission (aOR, 5.04; 95% CI 2.49-10.21), neonatal abstinence syndrome (aOR: 11.36; 95% CI 5.65-22.82), respiratory symptoms (aOR, 2.71; 95% CI 1.17-6.24), and maternal hospital stay > 7 days (aOR, 14.51; 95% CI 7.23-29.12). Similar patterns emerged for buprenorphine regarding neonatal abstinence syndrome (aOR: 10.27; 95% CI 4.91-21.47) and extended maternal hospital stay (aOR: 3.84; 95% CI 1.83-8.07). However, differences were found favoring the use of buprenorphine for preterm birth versus untreated pregnancies (aOR: 0.17; 95% CI 0.04-0.77), and for several outcomes versus methadone.ConclusionsMethadone and buprenorphine prescribed for the treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy are associated with varying perinatal risks. However, buprenorphine may be preferred in the setting of pregnancy opioid agonist treatment. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings and minimize residual confounding.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The positive deviance approach seeks to identify and learn from exceptional performers. Although a framework exists to apply positive deviance within healthcare organisations, there is limited guidance to support its implementation. The approach has also rarely explored exceptional performance on broad outcomes, been implemented at ward level, or applied within the UK. This study develops and critically appraises a pragmatic method for identifying positively deviant wards using a routinely collected, broad measure of patient safety. DESIGN:A two-phased observational study was conducted. During phase 1, cross-sectional and temporal analyses of Safety Thermometer data were conducted to identify a discrete group of positively deviant wards that consistently demonstrated exceptional levels of safety. A group of matched comparison wards with above average performances were also identified. During phase 2, multidisciplinary staff and patients on the positively deviant and comparison wards completed surveys to explore whether their perceptions of safety supported the identification of positively deviant wards. SETTING:34 elderly medical wards within a northern region of England, UK. PARTICIPANTS:Multidisciplinary staff (n=161) and patients (n=188) clustered within nine positively deviant and comparison wards. RESULTS:Phase 1: A combination of analyses identified five positively deviant wards that performed best in the region, outperformed their organisation and performed consistently well over 12 months. Five above average matched comparator wards were also identified. Phase 2: Staff and patient perceptions of safety generally supported the identification of positively deviant wards using Safety Thermometer data, although patient perceptions of safety were less concordant with the routinely collected data. CONCLUSIONS:This study tentatively supports a pragmatic method of using routinely collected data to identify positively deviant elderly medical wards; however, it also highlights the various challenges that are faced when conducting the first stage of the positive deviance approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio (reference-18050).

Project description:BackgroundPatients have the potential to provide feedback on the safety of their care. Recently, tools have been developed that ask patients to provide feedback on those factors that are known to contribute to safety, therefore providing information that can be used proactively to manage safety in hospitals. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the safety information provided by patients is different from that provided by staff and whether it is related to safety outcomes.MethodData were collected from 33 hospital wards across 3 acute hospital Trusts in the UK. Staff on these wards were asked to complete the four outcome measures of the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture, while patients were asked to complete the Patient Measure of Safety and the friends and family test. We also collated publicly reported safety outcome data for 'harm-free care' on each ward. This patient safety thermometer measure is used in the UK NHS to record the percentage of patients on a single day of each month on every ward who have received harm-free care (ie, no pressure ulcers, falls, urinary tract infections and hospital acquired new venous thromboembolisms). These data were used to address questions about the relationship between measures and the extent to which patient and staff perceptions of safety predict safety outcomes.ResultsThe friends and family test, a single item measure of patient experience was associated with patients' perceptions of safety, but was not associated with safety outcomes. Staff responses to the patient safety culture survey were not significantly correlated with patient responses to the patient measure of safety, but both independently predicted safety outcomes. The regression models showed that staff perceptions (adjusted r(2)=0.39) and patient perceptions (adjusted r(2)=0.30) of safety independently predicted safety outcomes. When entered together both measures accounted for 49% of the variance in safety outcomes (adjusted r(2)=0.49), suggesting that there is overlap but some unique variance is also explained by these two measures. Based on responses to the Patient Measure of Safety it was also possible to identify differences between the acute Hospital Trusts.DiscussionThe findings suggest that although the views of patients and staff predict some overlapping variance in patient safety outcomes, both also offer a unique perspective on patient safety, contributing independently to the prediction of safety outcomes. These findings suggest that feedback from patients about the safety of the care that they receive can be used, in addition to data from staff to drive safety improvements in healthcare.Trial registration numberISRCTN07689702.

Dataset Information

Using routinely collected data to understand and predict adverse outcomes in opioid agonist treatment: Protocol for the Opioid Agonist Treatment Safety (OATS) Study.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Using routinely collected data to understand and predict adverse outcomes in opioid agonist treatment: Protocol for the Opioid Agonist Treatment Safety (OATS) Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets