Opioid Prescribing and Physician Autonomy: A Quality of Care Perspective.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Barnes M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6384205 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Opioid Prescribing and Physician Autonomy: A Quality of Care Perspective.
Barnes Mark M Giampa John J Caron Minal M
HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 20190128 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundPrescription opioid overprescribing is a focal point for legislators, but little is known about opioid prescribing patterns of primary care nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs).ObjectiveTo identify prescription opioid overprescribers by comparing prescribing patterns of primary care physicians (MDs), nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs).DesignRetrospective, cross-sectional analysis of Medicare Part D enrollee prescription data.ParticipantsTwenty percent national sample of 2015 Medicare Part D enrollees.Main measuresWe identified potential opioid overprescribing as providers who met at least one of the following: (1) prescribed any opioid to > 50% of patients, (2) prescribed ≥ 100 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day to > 10% of patients, or (3) prescribed an opioid > 90 days to > 20% of patients.Key resultsAmong 222,689 primary care providers, 3.8% of MDs, 8.0% of NPs, and 9.8% of PAs met at least one definition of overprescribing. 1.3% of MDs, 6.3% of NPs, and 8.8% of PAs prescribed an opioid to at least 50% of patients. NPs/PAs practicing in states with independent prescription authority were > 20 times more likely to overprescribe opioids than NPs/PAs in prescription-restricted states.ConclusionsMost NPs/PAs prescribed opioids in a pattern similar to MDs, but NPs/PAs had more outliers who prescribed high-frequency, high-dose opioids than did MDs. Efforts to reduce opioid overprescribing should include targeted provider education, risk stratification, and state legislation.
| S-EPMC7459076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe opioid epidemic in the United States is an ongoing public health concern. Health care institutions use standardized patient satisfaction surveys to assess the patient experience and some offer incentives to their providers based on the results. We hypothesized that providers who report being incentivized based on patient satisfaction surveys are more likely to report an impact of such surveys on their opioid prescribing practices.MethodsWe developed a 23-item survey instrument to assess the self-perceived impact of patient satisfaction surveys on opioid prescribing practices in primary care and the potential impact of institutional incentives. The survey was emailed to all 1404 members of the Colorado Academy of Family Physicians.ResultsThe response rate to the online survey was 10.4% (n = 146). Clinical indications for which responders prescribe opioids included acute pain (93%), cancer pain (85%), and chronic nonmalignant pain (72%). Among physicians using patient satisfaction surveys, incentivized physicians reported at least a slight impact on opioid prescribing 3 times more often than physicians who were not incentivized (36% vs 12%, P = .004).ConclusionsEfforts to improve patient satisfaction may have potentially untoward effects on providers' opioid prescribing behaviors. Our results suggest a need to further study the impact of provider incentive plans that are based on patient satisfaction scores.
| S-EPMC6396292 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo understand the physician perspective on the barriers and facilitators of implementing nine different opioid risk mitigation strategies (RMS) when prescribing opioid medications.MethodsWe created and dispersed a cross-sectional online survey through the Qualtrics© data collection platform among a nationwide sample of physicians licensed to practice medicine in the United States who have prescribed an opioid medication within the past year. The responses were analyzed using a deductive thematic analysis approach based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ensure a holistic approach to identifying the barriers and facilitators for each RMS assessed. In concordance with this method, the themes and codes for the thematic analysis were defined prior to the analysis. The five domains within the CFIR were used as themes and the 39 nested constructs were treated as the codes. Two members of the research team independently coded the transcripts and discussed points of disagreement until consensus was reached. All analyses were conducted in ATLAS.ti© V7.ResultsThe completion rate for this survey was 85.1% with 273 participant responses eligible for analysis. Intercoder reliability was calculated to be 82%. Deductive thematic analysis yielded 2,077 descriptions of factors affecting implementation of the nine RMS. The most salient code across all RMS was Knowledge and Beliefs about the Intervention, which refers to individuals' attitudes towards and value placed on the intervention. Patient Needs and Resources, a code referring to the extent to which patient needs are known and prioritized by the organization, also emerged as a salient code. The physicians agreed that the patient perspective on the issue is vital to the uptake of each of the RMS.ConclusionsThis deductive thematic analysis identified key points for actionable intervention across the nine RMS assessed and established the importance of patient concordance with physicians when deciding on a course of treatment.
| S-EPMC10617230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the quality of drug treatment in older people from a broad family physician perspective, and to provide evidence for power calculations in full-scale studies on prescribing quality.DesignDescriptive, retrospective pilot study.SettingA primary healthcare centre in Sweden.Participants123 consecutive patients, ≥65 years, with a non-urgent physician consultation in January 2016.MeasuresThe drug treatment was assessed by a physician as either appropriate or suboptimal, taking individual factors like morbidity, life expectancy and concurrent drug treatment into account, and preceded by the application of 493 criteria from three screening tools for Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) and Potential Prescribing Omissions (PPOs). Suboptimal drug treatment was further categorised regarding priority: (1) immediate change suggested or (2) actions suggested in the longer term. Prevalence of the procedure code 'medication review' and the results thereof were also recorded.ResultsMedian age: 76 years; 48% women. When a family physician perspective was applied, and 593 PIMs/PPOs identified in 117 (95%) patients considered, 45 (37%) patients had suboptimal drug treatment. Immediate handling was suggested in 13 (11%) patients, most often concerning withdrawals of drugs for anxiety and insomnia. Handling in the longer term was suggested in 32 (26%) patients, most often concerning overuse of proton pump inhibitors. Over the last year, the procedure code 'medication review' was recorded for 65 (53%) patients. In medication reviews recorded during January 2016 (n=45), 23 (7%) drugs out of 309 were acted on, most often a dosage adjustment.ConclusionsThis pilot study shows that when a broad family physician perspective is applied, taking individual factors and medical priorities in the complex clinical situation into account, drug treatment in primary care is appropriate for the majority of older patients. The results may be useful in sample size considerations for future studies on prescribing practices.
| S-EPMC6549657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPain is one of the most common symptoms encountered in the healthcare system, and opioids are among the top three medications used to treat it. Understanding the reasoning behind physicians' opioid prescribing practices is vital to safe practice. The primary objective of our study was to describe pediatric emergency physicians' decision-making process when prescribing opioids for children's acute pain management.MethodsThis study employed qualitative methodology, using one-on-one semi-structured interviews within a grounded theory analytic framework. We employed purposeful sampling to recruit pediatric emergency physicians from across Canada. Interviews were conducted by telephone (December 2019-January 2021). Transcript analysis occurred concurrently with data collection, supporting data saturation and theory development considerations.ResultsEleven interviews were completed with participants representing each of Canada's geographic regions. Nine major themes emerged: (1) practice setting and outpatient opioid use, (2) condition-specific considerations, (3) physician confidence in medical evidence, (4) pain assessment challenges, (5) patient and family perspectives, (6) opioid safety concerns, (7) personal biases and experiences, (8) personal practice context, and (9) the Opioid Crisis/media influence. Most clinicians felt that they limited opioid use to those who needed it most; all participants described challenges managing acute pain, emphasizing the need for accurate pain measurement and better guidelines, evidence-based data, and knowledge translation. Clinicians were more comfortable treating pain in the emergency department, compared to discharge prescribing. They recognized the importance of co-therapy with non-opioids and the need for opioid risk assessment when prescribing. A family centered approach was recognized as the goal of practice.ConclusionClinicians are less comfortable prescribing opioids to children for at-home use and find pain assessment and lack of clear guidelines to be barriers to pain care. Knowledge translation strategies for safer practice and optimal acute pain management could support responsible and judicious opioid use.
| S-EPMC10088422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPain is a frequent symptom among patients in the hospital. Pain management is a key quality indicator for hospitals, and hospitalists are encouraged to frequently assess and treat pain. Optimal opioid prescribing, described as safe, patient-centered, and informed opioid prescribing, may be at odds with the priorities of current hospital care, which focuses on patient-reported pain control rather than the potential long-term consequences of opioid use.ObjectiveWe aimed to understand physicians' attitudes, beliefs, and practices toward opioid prescribing during hospitalization and discharge.DesignIn-depth, semistructured interviews.SettingTwo university hospitals, a safety-net hospital, a Veterans Affairs hospital, and a private hospital located in Denver, Colorado or Charleston, South Carolina.ParticipantsHospitalists (N = 25).MeasurementsWe systematically analyzed transcribed interviews and identified emerging themes using a team-based mixed inductive and deductive approach.ResultsAlthough hospitalists felt confident in their ability to control acute pain using opioid medications, they perceived limited success and satisfaction when managing acute exacerbations of chronic pain with opioids. Hospitalists recounted negative sentinel events that altered opioid prescribing practices in both the hospital setting and at the time of hospital discharge. Hospitalists described prescribing opioids as a pragmatic tool to facilitate hospital discharges or prevent readmissions. At times, this left them feeling conflicted about how this practice could impact the patient over the long term.ConclusionsStrategies to provide adequate pain relief to hospitalized patients, which allow hospitalists to safely and optimally prescribe opioids while maintaining current standards of efficiency, are urgently needed. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:536-542. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.
| S-EPMC4970927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if there are differences in opioid prescribing among generalist physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) to Medicare Part D beneficiaries.DesignSerial cross-sectional analysis of prescription claims from 2013 to 2016 using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.SubjectsAll generalist physicians, NPs, and PAs who provided more than 10 total prescription claims between 2013 and 2016 were included. These prescribers were subsetted as practicing in a primary care, urgent care, or hospital-based setting.MethodsThe main outcomes were total opioid claims and opioid claims as a proportion of all claims in patients treated by these prescribers in each of the three settings of interest. Binomial regression was used to generate marginal estimates to allow comparison of the volume of claims by these prescribers with adjustment for practice setting, gender, years of practice, median income of the ZIP code, state fixed effects, and relevant interaction terms.ResultsThere were 36,999 generalist clinicians (physicians, NPs, and PAs) with at least one year of Part D prescription drug claims data between 2013 and 2016. The number of adjusted total opioid claims across these four years for physicians was 660 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 660-661), for NPs was 755 (95% CI = 753-757), and for PAs was 812 (95% CI = 811-814).ConclusionsWe find relatively high rates of opioid prescribing among NPs and PAs, especially at the upper margins. This suggests that well-designed interventions to improve the safety of NP and PA opioid prescribing, along with that of their physician colleagues, could be especially beneficial.
| S-EPMC6953344 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the age of artificial intelligence, the common interest in human autonomy is experiencing a revival. Autonomy has formerly and mostly been investigated from a theoretical scientific perspective, in which scholars from various disciplines have linked autonomy with the concepts of dignity, independence from others, morality, self-awareness, and unconventionality. In a series of three semi-qualitative, preregistered online studies (total N = 505), we investigated laypersons' understanding of autonomy with a bottom-up procedure to find out how far lay intuition is consistent with scientific theory. First, in Study 1, participants (n = 222) provided us with at least three and up to 10 examples of autonomous behaviors, for a total of 807 meaningful examples. With the help of blinded research assistants, we sorted the obtained examples into categories, from which we generated 34 representative items for the following studies. Next, in Study 2, we asked a new sample of participants (n = 108) to rate the degree of autonomy reflected in each of these 34 items. Last, we presented the five highest-rated and the five lowest-rated items to the participants of Study 3 (n = 175), whom we asked to evaluate how strongly they represented the components of autonomy: dignity, independence from others, morality, self-awareness, and unconventionality. We identified that dignity, independence from others, morality, and self-awareness significantly distinguished between high- and low-autonomy items, implying that high autonomy items were rated higher on dignity, independence from others, morality, and self-awareness than low autonomy items, but unconventionality did not. Our findings contribute to both our understanding of autonomous behaviors and connecting lay intuition with scientific theory.
| S-EPMC9021446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe association between pharmaceutical industry promotion and physician opioid prescribing is poorly understood. Whether the influence of industry gifts on prescribing varies by specialty is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between opioid-related gifts to physicians and opioid prescribing in the subsequent year across 7 physician specialties.DesignPanel study using data from 2014 to 2016.Participants236,103 unique Medicare Part D physicians (389,622 physician-years) who received any gifts from pharmaceutical companies measured using Open Payments and prescribed opioids in the subsequent year.Main measuresAmounts paid by pharmaceutical companies for opioid-related gifts including meals and lodging; quartile of opioid prescribing as a percent of total prescribing compared with other same-specialty physicians.Key resultsIn 2014-2015, 14.1% of physician received opioid-related gifts from the industry with 2.6% receiving > $100. Gifts varied by specialty and were concentrated among two pharmaceutical companies responsible for 60% of the value of opioid-related gifts. Receiving opioid-related gifts was associated with greater prescribing of opioids compared with same-specialty physicians in the next year. Primary care physicians are nearly 3.5 times as likely to be in the highest quartile of prescribing versus the lower quartiles if they were paid ≥ $100. Psychiatrists and neurologists were 7 to 13 times as likely to be in a higher quartile of opioid prescribing compared with colleagues who were paid $0 in the preceding year.ConclusionsThe value of opioid-related gifts given to physicians varies substantially by provider specialty, as does the relationship between payment amounts and prescriber behavior in the following year.
| S-EPMC7403285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Long-term opioid use for noncancer pain is increasingly prevalent yet controversial given the risks of addiction, diversion, and overdose. Prior literature has identified the problem and proposed management guidelines, but limited evidence exists on the actual effectiveness of implementing such guidelines in a primary care setting.A multidisciplinary working group of institutional experts assembled comprehensive guidelines for chronic opioid prescribing, including monitoring and referral recommendations. The guidelines were disseminated in September 2013 to our medical center's primary care clinics via in person and electronic education.We extracted electronic medical records for patients with noncancer pain receiving opioid prescriptions (Rxs) in seasonally matched preintervention (11/1/2012-6/1/2013) and postintervention (11/1/2013-6/1/2014) periods. For patients receiving chronic (3 or more) opioid Rxs, we assessed the rates of drug screening, specialty referrals, clinic visits, emergency room visits, and quantity of opioids prescribed.After disseminating guidelines, the percentage of noncancer clinic patients receiving any opioid Rxs dropped from 3.9% to 3.4% (P?=?0.02). The percentage of noncancer patients receiving chronic opioid Rxs decreased from 2.0% to 1.6% (P?=?0.03). The rate of urine drug screening increased from 9.2% to 17.3% (P?=?0.005) amongst noncancer chronic opioid patients. No significant differences were detected for other metrics or demographics assessed.An educational intervention for primary care opioid prescribing is feasible and was temporally associated with a modest reduction in overall opioid Rx rates. Provider use of routine drug screening increased, but overall rates of screening and specialty referral remained low despite the intervention. Despite national pressures to introduce opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic pain, doing so alone does not necessarily yield substantial changes in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC5008612 | biostudies-literature