Dataset Information

Re-assessing the Validity of the Opioid Risk Tool in a Tertiary Academic Pain Management Center Population.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To analyze the validity of the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) in a large. diverse population. DESIGN:A cross-sectional descriptive study. SETTING:Academic tertiary pain management center. SUBJECTS:A total of 225 consecutive new patients, aged 18 years or older. METHODS:Data collection included demographics, ORT scores, aberrant behaviors, pain intensity scores, opioid type and dose, smoking status, employment, and marital status. RESULTS:In this population, we were not able to replicate the findings of the initial ORT study. Self-report was no better than chance in predicting those who would have an opioid aberrant behavior. The ORT risk variables did not predict aberrant behaviors in either gender group. There was significant disparity in the scores between self-reported ORT and the ORT supplemented with medical record data (enhanced ORT). Using the enhanced ORT, high-risk patients were 2.5 times more likely to have an aberrant behavior than the low-risk group. The only risk variable associated with aberrant behavior was personal history of prescription drug misuse. CONCLUSIONS:The self-report ORT was not a valid test for the prediction of future aberrant behaviors in this academic pain management population. The original risk categories (low, medium, high) were not supported in the either the self-reported version or the enhanced version; however, the enhanced data were able to differentiate between high- and low-risk patients. Unfortunately, without technological automation, the enhanced ORT suffers from practical limitations. The self-report ORT may not be a valid tool in current pain populations; however, modification into a binary (high/low) score system needs further study.

SUBMITTER: Clark MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7191882 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Re-assessing the Validity of the Opioid Risk Tool in a Tertiary Academic Pain Management Center Population.

Clark Meredith R MR Hurley Robert W RW Adams Meredith C B MCB

Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) 20180701 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To analyze the validity of the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) in a large. diverse population.<h4>Design</h4>A cross-sectional descriptive study.<h4>Setting</h4>Academic tertiary pain management center.<h4>Subjects</h4>A total of 225 consecutive new patients, aged 18 years or older.<h4>Methods</h4>Data collection included demographics, ORT scores, aberrant behaviors, pain intensity scores, opioid type and dose, smoking status, employment, and marital status.<h4>Results</h4>In this popul ...[more]

PMID: 29408996

Similar Datasets

Project description:ICU is a multifaceted organization where multiple teams care for critically ill patients. In the current era, collaboration between teams and efficient workflows form the backbone of value-based care. Geographical cohorting is a widespread model for hospitalist rounding, but its role in ICUs is unclear. This study evaluates the outcomes of geographical cohorting in a large ICU of an Academic Health Center.DesignThis is a retrospective analysis of quality metrics collected 12 months pre- and post-implementation of geographical cohorting.SettingA total of 130 bedded ICU at tertiary academic health center in Midwest.PatientsAll patients admitted to the ICU.InterventionsOur institution piloted the geographical cohorting model for critical care physician rounding on September 1, 2018.MeasurementsThe quality metrics were categorized as ICU harm events and ICU hospital metrics. Team of critical care providers were surveyed 12 months after implementation.Main resultsThe critical care utilization in the pre- and post-implementation numbers were similar for patient days (pre = 34,839, post = 35,155), central-line days (pre = 17,648, post = 19,224), and Foley catheter days (pre = 18,292, post = 17,364). The ICU length of stay was similar (4.9 d) in both pre- and post-intervention periods. Significant reduction in the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (relative risk, -0.50; 95% CI, 0.25-0.96; p = 0.039), hospital-acquired pressure injury (relative risk, -0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.92; p = 0.020), central line-associated bloodstream infection incidence (relative risk, -0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; p = 0.008), and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (relative risk, -0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.93; p = 0.027). Healthcare providers perceived optimal utilization of their time, reduced interruptions, and improved coordination of care with geographical rounding.ConclusionsGeographical cohorting improves coordination of care, physician workflow, and critical care quality metrics in very large ICUs.

Project description:ObjectivesThis quality improvement project sought to enhance clinical information sharing for interhospital transfers to an inpatient hepatology service comprised of internal medicine resident frontline providers (housestaff) with the specific aims of making housestaff aware of 100% of incoming transfers and providing timely access to clinical summaries.InterventionsIn February 2020, an email notification system to senior medicine residents responsible for patient triage shared planned arrival time for patients pending transfer. In July 2020, a clinical data repository ("Transfer Log") updated daily by accepting providers (attending physicians and subspecialty fellows) became available to senior medicine residents responsible for triage.MethodsLikert scale surveys were administered to housestaff before email intervention (pre) and after transfer log intervention (post). The time from patient arrival to team assignment (TTA) in the electronic medical record was used as a proxy for time to patient assessment and was measured pre- and postinterventions; >2 hours to TTA was considered an extreme delay.ResultsHousestaff reported frequency of access to clinical information as follows: preinterventions 4/31 (13%) sometimes/very often and 27/31 (87%) never/rarely; postinterventions 11/26 (42%) sometimes/very often and 15/26 (58%) never/rarely (p = 0.02). Preinterventions 12/39 (31%) felt "not at all prepared" versus 27/39 (69%) "somewhat" or "adequately"; postinterventions 2/24 (8%) felt "not at all prepared" versus 22/24 (92%) somewhat/adequately prepared (p = 0.06). There was a significant difference in mean TTA between pre- and posttransfer log groups (62 vs. 40 minutes, p = 0.01) and a significant reduction in patients with extreme delays in TTA post-email (18/180 pre-email vs. 7/174 post-email, p = 0.04).ConclusionEarly notification and increased access to clinical information were associated with better sense of preparedness for admitting housestaff, reduction in TTA, and reduced frequency of extreme delays in team assignment.

Project description:Academic Medical Centers ("AMCs") have served as a hub of the United States ("US") health system and represented the state-of-the art in American health care for well over a century. Currently, the global healthcare market is both massive and expanding and is being altered by the unprecedented impact of technological advances and globalization. This provides AMCs a platform to enter into trans-national collaborative partnerships with healthcare organizations around the world, thus providing a means to deliver on its promise globally while also expanding and diversifying its resources. A number of leading US AMCs have engaged in global collaborative healthcare, employing different models based on services offered, global distribution, and inclination to assume risk. Engaging in these collaborations requires significant effort from across the health system, and an understanding of the resources required is paramount for effective delivery and to avoid overextension and diversion from the primary mission of these organizations. The goal of this paper is to discuss the role of US AMCs in this current global healthcare landscape and to also investigate our institutional faculty and staff resource requirements to support the operating model.We extracted and retrospectively analyzed data from the JHI Global Services database for a 3-year period (Jan, 2013-Dec, 2015) to determine total utilization (hours and full time equivalent (FTE)), utilization by profession, and clinical and non-clinical areas of expertise.JHI utilized on average 21,940 h annually, or 10.55 FTEs of faculty and staff subject matter experts. The majority of the hours are for work performed by physician faculty members from 23 departments within the School of Medicine, representing 77% percent or on average 16,894 h annually. Clinical and allied health departments had an average annual utilization of 17,642 h or 7.8 FTEs, while non-clinical departments, schools and institutes averaged 4298 h or 1.9 FTEs, representing 80.4% and 19.6% respectively.We found that significant human resources are required within a broad range of AMC subject matter expertise across multiple disciplines, and that with adequate forecasting AMCs can successfully engage in these collaborations while continuing to fulfill their core mission.

Dataset Information

Re-assessing the Validity of the Opioid Risk Tool in a Tertiary Academic Pain Management Center Population.

Publications

Re-assessing the Validity of the Opioid Risk Tool in a Tertiary Academic Pain Management Center Population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets