Dataset Information

Educating Surgical Oncology Providers on Perioperative Opioid Use: Results of a Departmental Survey on Perceptions of Opioid Needs and Prescribing Habits.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patients undergoing oncologic surgery are at risk for persistent postoperative opioid use. As a quality improvement initiative, this study sought to characterize provider perceptions regarding opioid-prescribing after oncologic procedures. METHODS:Surgical oncology attending physicians, clinical fellows, and advanced practice providers (APPs) at a high-volume cancer center were surveyed before and after educational sessions focusing on the opioid epidemic with review of departmental data. RESULTS:The pre-education response rates were 72 (70%) of 103: 22 (65%) of 34 attending physicians, 19 (90%) of 21 fellows, and 31 (65%) of 48 APPs. For five index operations (open abdominal resection, laparoscopic colectomy, wide local excision, thyroidectomy, port), the fellows answered that patients should stop receiving opioids sooner than recommended by the attending surgeons or APPs. For four of five procedures, the APPs recommended higher discharge opioid prescriptions than the attending surgeons or fellows. Almost half of the providers (n?=?46, 45%) responded to both the pre- and post-education surveys. After the intervention, the providers recommended lower numbers of opioid pills and indicated that patients should be weaned from opioids sooner for all the procedures. Compared with pre-education, more providers agreed post-education that discharge opioid prescriptions should be based on a patient's last 24 h of inpatient opioid use (83 vs 91%; p?=?0.006). The providers who did not attend a session showed no difference in perceptions or recommendations at the repeat assessment. CONCLUSIONS:Variation exists in perioperative opioid-prescribing among provider types, with those most involved in daily care and discharge processes generally recommending more opioids. After education, providers lowered discharge opioid recommendations and thought patients should stop receiving opioids sooner. The next steps include assessing for quantitative changes in opioid-prescribing and implementing standardized opioid prescription algorithms.

SUBMITTER: Lillemoe HA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6907739 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Educating Surgical Oncology Providers on Perioperative Opioid Use: Results of a Departmental Survey on Perceptions of Opioid Needs and Prescribing Habits.

Lillemoe Heather A HA Newhook Timothy E TE Vreeland Timothy J TJ Arvide Elsa M EM Dewhurst Whitney L WL Grubbs Elizabeth G EG Aloia Thomas A TA Vauthey Jean-Nicolas JN Lee Jeffrey E JE Tzeng Ching-Wei D CD

Annals of surgical oncology 20190401 7

<h4>Background</h4>Patients undergoing oncologic surgery are at risk for persistent postoperative opioid use. As a quality improvement initiative, this study sought to characterize provider perceptions regarding opioid-prescribing after oncologic procedures.<h4>Methods</h4>Surgical oncology attending physicians, clinical fellows, and advanced practice providers (APPs) at a high-volume cancer center were surveyed before and after educational sessions focusing on the opioid epidemic with review of ...[more]

PMID: 30937660

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveAt our emergency department (ED), opioid prescribing guidelines were implemented in September 2016. The opioid prescribing guidelines were adopted and revised from collective efforts and advocacy of the Michigan College of Emergency Physicians for ED-led opioid stewardship. We performed a retrospective before and after study to determine if opioid prescribing guidelines would change the use of intravenous opioids per patient and the morphine equivalent units (MEU) per patient in a suburban academic ED.MethodsA retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care level 1 trauma center with an annual ED volume of ≈ 130,000 visits. All intravenous orders of fentanyl, morphine, and hydromorphone for adult patients from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2017, were tabulated. A 3-month (August 2016-October 2016) washout period was used. Poisson and ordinary linear regression analyses were employed to evaluate any difference in number of intravenous opioids ordered before and after adoption of the guidelines. Within our opioid prescribing guidelines was also guidance for oral opioid orders within the ED and oral opioid prescriptions for discharge, although these elements were not included in this investigation.ResultsA total of 108,327 intravenous opioid orders were included in the final analysis. After adoption of the opioid prescribing guidelines, the expected number of intravenous opioids ordered dropped by 3.1% (eβ, 0.969; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.779-1.209), and there was an additional decrease of 0.1% per month (eβ, 0.999; 95% CI, 0.990-1.010). After the adoption of opioid prescribing guidelines, the average MEU dropped by 0.3 mg (95% CI, -0.47 to -0.13), and there was decrease of 0.01 mg per month (95% CI, -0.02 to -0.004).ConclusionAfter the adoption of opioid prescribing guidelines, our analysis suggests that opioid prescribing guidelines are associated with clinically small but statistically significant changes in MEU ordered in ED. We cannot determine if this represented a continued trend of decreased opioid use or associated with the opioid prescribing guidelines.

Project description:PurposeTo identify targets for corrective interventions and guide improved opioid stewardship, we studied opioid prescribing patterns of attending surgeons compared with surgical trainees for 2 upper-extremity surgeries: open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of distal radius fractures (DRF), and carpal tunnel release (CTR).MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed records for all patients who underwent CTR or DRF ORIF at 6 hospitals across a large health system from 2016 to 2018. We collected prescriber training level (attending vs trainee), analgesic prescribed, and amount initially prescribed after surgery converted to oral morphine equivalents (OMEs). Regression models evaluated OMEs by prescriber and surgery type. Our final models included an interaction term between prescriber training level and year of surgery to assess group changes over time. No prescription guidelines or formal training was provided during the study period.ResultsWe included 707 CTR and 383 DRF ORIF patients. Opioids prescribed by trainees ranged from 90 to 300 OMEs (median, 180 OMEs). Opioids prescribed by attendings ranged from 100 to 225 OMEs (median, 150 OMEs). Early in the analyses, trainees prescribed significantly more than attendings (320 versus 180). Over time, trainees reduced overprescribing significantly more, by an additional 40 OME/y. By the end of the analysis period, trainees were prescribing less OME than were attendings (112.5 vs 150). Both groups continued to prescribe more than recently suggested amounts for both procedures.ConclusionsOur study found that both attendings and trainees overprescribed opioids after surgery. Trainees prescribed more than attendings over the study period; however, when analyzing for improvement over time and with no formal intervention or training, trainees showed greater improvement, eventually dropping to levels at or below that of attendings. Considering that most change was seen at the trainee level, education for established providers may be an area in which more improvement can be made.Clinical relevanceUnderstanding which providers are more likely to overprescribe opioids can help guide interventions that improve opioid stewardship.

Project description:BackgroundIn Saskatchewan, Canada, Indigenous cancer care services at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels are intended to improve quality care but can result in a complex, fragmented, and multi-jurisdictional health care system. A multi-phase needs assessment project was initiated to document Indigenous cancer care needs. Guided by Indigenous patient partners, clinicians, academics, and policy makers, the present study reflects a needs assessment of Indigenous cancer supports from the perspectives of cancer care service providers.MethodsQualitative data were collected through three focus groups with 20 service providers for cancer patients and their families at three Saskatchewan cities. Participants included chemotherapy and radiation nurses, social workers, a patient navigator, dieticians, and practicum students. A semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct the sessions to allow for freedom of responses. Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsService providers' perspectives were categorized into five themes: 1) addressing travel-related issues, 2) logistical challenges, 3) improvements to Indigenous-specific health care supports, 4) cultural sensitivity in health care, and 5) consistency in care. Supports provided differed for the two Indigenous groups, First Nations and Métis. Service providers made recommendations regarding how needs could be met. They saw language translation providers and Elder supports as important. Recommendations for improving travel were for medical taxis to include breaks so that passengers may alleviate any uncomfortable side effects of their cancer treatment. Further, Indigenous-specific accommodations were recommended for those requiring medical travel. These recommendations aligned with supports that are available in four other Canadian provinces.ConclusionsThese results identified gaps in supports and outlined recommendations to address barriers to cancer care from the perspectives of service providers. These recommendations may inform evidence-based health system interventions for Indigenous cancer patients and ultimately aim to improve cancer care services, quality of life, and health outcomes of Indigenous patients throughout their cancer journey.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pharmacogenetic testing (PGx) has the potential to improve the quality of psychiatric prescribing by considering patients' genetic profile. However, there is limited scientific evidence supporting its efficacy or guiding its implementation. The Precision Medicine in Mental Health (PRIME) Care study is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a specific commercially-available pharmacogenetic (PGx) test to inform antidepressant prescribing at 22 sites across the U.S. Simultaneous implementation science methods using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) are integrated throughout the trial to identify contextual factors likely to be important in future implementation of PGx. The goal of this study was to understand providers' perceptions of PGx for antidepressant prescribing and implications for future implementation. METHODS:Qualitative focus groups (n?=?10) were conducted at the beginning of the trial with Primary Care and Mental Health providers (n?=?31) from six PRIME Care sites. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed and data were analyzed using rapid analytic procedures organized by CFIR domains. RESULTS:Analysis revealed themes in the CFIR Intervention Characteristics domain constructs of Evidence, Relative Advantage, Adaptability, Trialability, Complexity, and Design that are important for understanding providers' perceptions of PGx testing. Results indicate: 1) providers had limited experience and knowledge of PGx testing and its evidence base, particularly for psychiatric medications; 2) providers were hopeful that PGx could increase their precision in depression prescribing and improve patient engagement, but were uncertain about how results would influence treatment; 3) providers were concerned about potential misinterpretation of PGx results and how to incorporate testing into their workflow; 4) primary care providers were less familiar and comfortable with application of PGx testing to antidepressant prescribing than psychiatric providers. CONCLUSIONS:Provider perceptions may serve as facilitators or barriers to implementation of PGx for psychiatric prescribing. Incorporating implementation science into the conduct of the RCT adds value by uncovering factors to be addressed in preparing for future implementation, should the practice prove effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03170362 ; Registered 31 May 2017.

Dataset Information

Educating Surgical Oncology Providers on Perioperative Opioid Use: Results of a Departmental Survey on Perceptions of Opioid Needs and Prescribing Habits.

Publications

Educating Surgical Oncology Providers on Perioperative Opioid Use: Results of a Departmental Survey on Perceptions of Opioid Needs and Prescribing Habits.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets