A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Clinician Education Modules on Reducing Surgical Opioid Prescribing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
In this study, we developed online interactive clinician education modules highlighting best practices to minimize opioid prescribing at discharge after surgery. The modules were implemented as part of a multicomponent quality improvement initiative across a six-hospital health system. This article describes the development and evaluation of this educational intervention.Materials and methods
Clinician education modules targeting surgical prescribers, nurses, and pharmacists were developed and implemented by an interdisciplinary team. Clinicians were invited to participate in an evaluation survey after completing the modules. Survey items assessed clinicians' rating of the module and intention to change clinical practice because of the module. Quantitative and qualitative survey responses were analyzed by the study team.Results
A total of 2119 clinicians completed the module and 1831 of these clinicians (86.4%) completed the survey. Of clinicians completing the survey, 65.6% reported that they intend to change clinical practice after completing the module. Intended changes were related to increased knowledge and awareness, provider empowerment, opioid prescribing practices, nonopioid prescribing practices, and patient education. Many clinicians who indicated they do not intend to change practice reported that their clinical practices were already in line with module recommendations. Some clinicians did not perceive the module to be relevant to their role.Conclusions
Module completion was associated with the intention to improve clinical practice in areas related to provider empowerment, opioid prescribing, nonopioid prescribing, and patient education. Evaluation data will inform future module improvements. There is an opportunity to ensure that all clinicians, including those who are not prescribers, recognize their role in opioid stewardship.
SUBMITTER: Shallcross ML
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7736366 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAcademic detailing, an educational outreach service for family physicians, was funded by the Ontario government to address gaps in opioid prescribing and pain management. We sought to evaluate the impact of academic detailing on opioid prescribing, and to understand how and why academic detailing may have influenced opioid prescribing.MethodsIn this mixed-methods study, we collected quantitative and qualitative data concurrently from 2017 to 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We analyzed prescribing outcomes descriptively for a sample of participating physicians and compared them with a matched control group. We invited physicians to participate in qualitative interviews to discuss their experiences in academic detailing. Development and analysis of qualitative interviews was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. We triangulated qualitative and quantitative findings to understand the mechanisms that drove changes in opioid prescribing.ResultsPhysicians receiving academic detailing (n = 238) achieved a greater reduction in opioid prescribing than matched controls (n = 238). Seventeen physicians completed interviews and reported that academic detailing addressed barriers to pain care, including lack of confidence, difficult interactions with patients and prescribing and tapering decisions. Academic detailing reinforced knowledge about opioid prescribing and pain management. Discussion of complex patients and talking points to use during challenging conversations were described as key drivers of practice change.InterpretationThe findings of this real-world, mixed-methods evaluation explain how an academic detailing service addressed key barriers and enablers to limit high-risk opioid prescribing in primary care. This nuanced understanding will be used to inform, spread and scale academic detailing.
| S-EPMC10586496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPostoperative opioid use can lead to dependence, contributing to the opioid epidemic in the United States. New persistent opioid use after minor surgeries occurs in 5.9% of patients. With increased documentation of persistent opioid use postoperatively, surgeons must pursue interventions to reduce opioid use perioperatively.MethodsWe performed a prospective cohort study to assess the feasibility of a preoperative intervention via patient education or counseling and changes in provider prescribing patterns to reduce postoperative opioid use. We included adult patients undergoing thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy from January 22, 2019 to February 28, 2019 at a tertiary referral, academic endocrine surgery practice. Surveys were administered to assess pain and patient satisfaction postoperatively. Prescription, demographic, and comorbidity data were collected from the electronic health record.ResultsSixty six patients (74.2% women, mean age 58.6 [SD 14.9] y) underwent thyroidectomy (n = 35), parathyroidectomy (n = 24), and other cervical endocrine operations (n = 7). All patients received a preoperative educational intervention in the form of a paper handout. 90.9% of patients were discharged with prescriptions for nonopioid pain medications, and 7.6% were given an opioid prescription on discharge. Among those who received an opioid prescription, the median quantity of opioids prescribed was 135 (IQR 120-150) oral morphine equivalents. On survey, four patients (6.1%) reported any postoperative opioid use, and 94.6% of patients expressed satisfaction with their preoperative education and postoperative pain management.ConclusionsClear and standardized education regarding postoperative pain management is feasible and associated with high patient satisfaction. Initiation of such education may support efforts to minimize unnecessary opioid prescriptions in the population undergoing endocrine surgery.
| S-EPMC7855097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeUnlike in many community-based settings, benzodiazepine (BZD) prescribing to older veterans has decreased. We sought to identify health care system strategies associated with greater facility-level reductions in BZD prescribing to older adults.MethodsWe completed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study of health care facilities in the Veterans Health Administration (N = 140). Among veterans aged ≥75 years receiving long-term BZD treatment, we stratified facilities into relatively high and low performance on the basis of the reduction in average daily dose of prescribed BZD from October 1, 2015 to June 30, 2017. We then interviewed key facility informants (n = 21) who led local BZD reduction efforts (champions), representing 11 high-performing and 6 low-performing facilities.ResultsAcross all facilities, the age-adjusted facility-level average daily dose in October 2015 began at 1.34 lorazepam-equivalent mg/d (SD 0.17); the average rate of decrease was -0.27 mg/d (SD 0.09) per year. All facilities interviewed, regardless of performance, used passive strategies primarily consisting of education regarding appropriate prescribing, alternatives, and identifying potential patients for discontinuation. In contrast, champions at high-performing facilities described leveraging ≥1 active strategies that included individualized recommendations, administrative barriers to prescribing, and performance measures to incentivize clinicians.ConclusionsInitiatives to reduce BZD prescribing to older adults that are primarily limited to passive strategies, such as education and patient identification, might have limited success. Clinicians might benefit from additional recommendations, support, and incentives to modify prescribing practices.
| S-EPMC9328717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe 2016 U.S. Centers for Disease Control Opioid Prescribing Guideline (CDC Guideline) is currently being revised amid concern that it may be harmful to people with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy (CP-LTOT). However, a methodology to faithfully implement the CDC guideline, measure prescriber adherence, and systematically test its effect on patient and public health outcomes is lacking. We developed and tested a CDC Guideline implementation strategy (termed TOWER), focusing on an outpatient HIV-focused primary care setting.MethodsTOWER was developed in a stakeholder-engaged, multi-step iterative process within an Information, Motivation and Behavioral Skills (IMB) framework of behavior change. TOWER consists of: 1) a patient-facing opioid management app (OM-App); 2) a progress note template (OM-Note) to guide the office visit; and 3) a primary care provider (PCP) training. TOWER was evaluated in a 9-month, randomized-controlled trial of HIV-PCPs (N = 11) and their patients with HIV and CP-LTOT (N = 40). The primary outcome was CDC Guideline adherence based on electronic health record (EHR) documentation and measured by the validated Safer Opioid Prescribing Evaluation Tool (SOPET). Qualitative data including one-on-one PCP interviews were collected. We also piloted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reflective of domains identified as important by stakeholders (pain intensity and function; mood; substance use; medication use and adherence; relationship with provider; stigma and discrimination).ResultsPCPs randomized to TOWER were 48% more CDC Guideline adherent (p < 0.0001) with significant improvements in use of: non-pharmacologic treatments, functional treatment goals, opioid agreements, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), opioid benefit/harm assessment, and naloxone prescribing. Qualitative data demonstrated high levels of confidence in conducting these care processes among intervention providers, and that OM-Note supported these efforts while experience with OM-App was mixed. There were no intervention-associated safety concerns (defined as worsening of any of the PROMs).ConclusionsCDC-guideline adherence can be promoted and measured, and is not associated with worsening of outcomes for people with HIV receiving LTOT for CP. Future work would be needed to document scalability of these results and to determine whether CDC-guideline adherence results in a positive effect on public health. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03669939 . Registration date: 9/13/2018.
| S-EPMC9108346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOpioids prescribed after surgery accounted for 5% of the 191 million opioid prescriptions filled in 2017. Approximately 80% of the opioid pills prescribed by surgical care providers remain unused, leaving a substantial number of opioids available for non-medical use. We developed a multi-component intervention to address surgical providers' role in the overprescribing of opioids. Our study will determine effective strategies for reducing post-surgical prescribing while ensuring adequate post-surgery patient-reported pain-related outcomes, and will assess implementation of the strategies.Methods and analysisThe Minimising Opioid Prescribing in Surgery study will implement a multi-component intervention, in an Illinois network of six hospitals (one academical, two large community and three small community hospitals), to decrease opioid analgesics prescribed after surgery. The multi-component intervention involves four domains: (1) patient expectation setting, (2) baseline assessment of opioid use, (3) perioperative pain control optimisation and (4) post-surgical opioid minimisation. Four surgical specialities (general, orthopaedics, urology and gynaecology) at the six hospitals will implement the intervention. A mixed-methods approach will be used to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the intervention. Data from the network's enterprise data warehouse will be used to evaluate the intervention's effect on post-surgical prescriptions and a survey will collect pain-related patient-reported outcomes. Intervention effectiveness will be determined using a triangulation design, mixed-methods approach with staggered speciality-specific implementation for contemporaneous control of opioid prescribing changes over time. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research will be used to evaluate the site-specific contextual factors and adaptations to achieve implementation at each site.Ethics and disseminationThe study aims to identify the most effective hospital-type and speciality-specific intervention bundles for rapid dissemination into our 56-hospital learning collaborative and in hospitals throughout the USA. All study activities have been approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (ID STU00205053).
| S-EPMC6561445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundContinuing health professions education (CHPE) is an important policy intervention for the opioid epidemic. Besides effectiveness or impact, health policy implementation should be studied to understand how an intervention was delivered within complex environments. Implementation outcomes can be used to help interpret CHPE effects and impacts, help answer questions of "how" and "why" programs work, and inform transferability. We evaluated Safer Opioid Prescribing (SOP), a national CHPE program, using implementation outcomes of reach, dose, fidelity, and participant responsiveness.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective quantitative implementation evaluation of the 2014-2017 cohorts of SOP. To measure reach and dose, we examined participation and completion data. We used Ontario physician demographic data, including regulatory status with respect to controlled substances, to examine relevant trends. To measure fidelity and participant responsiveness, we analyzed participant-provided evaluations of bias, active learning, and relevance to practice. We used descriptive statistics and measures of association for both continuous and categorical variables. We used logistic regression to determine predictors of workshop participation and analysis of covariance to examine variation in satisfaction across different-sized sessions.ResultsReach: In total, there were 472 unique participants, 84.0% of whom were family physicians. Among Ontario physician participants, 90.0% were family physicians with characteristics representative of province-wide demographics. Dose: Webinar completion rate was 86.2% with no differences in completion based on rurality, gender, or controlled substance prescribing status with medical regulatory authorities. Fidelity and participant responsiveness: Nearly all participants rated the three webinars and workshop as balanced, and each element of SOP was also rated as highly relevant to clinical practice.ConclusionsThis evaluation demonstrates that Safer Opioid Prescribing was implemented as intended. Over a short period and without any external funding, the program reached more than 1% of the Ontario physician workforce. This suggests that the program may be a good model for using virtual CHPE to reach a critical mass of prescribers. This study represents a methodological advance of adapting evaluation methods from health policy and complex interventions for continuing health professions education. Future studies will assess effectiveness and impact on opioid prescribing and utilization within evaluation models of complex interventions.
| S-EPMC7880212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinician moral distress has been documented over the past several decades as occurring within numerous healthcare disciplines, often in relation to clinicians' involvement in patients' end-of-life decision-making. The resulting harms impact clinician well-being, patient well-being, and healthcare system functioning. Given Covid-19's catastrophic death toll and associated demands on end-of-life decision-making processes, the pandemic represents a particularly important context within which to understand clinician moral distress. Thus, we conducted a convergent mixed methods study to examine its prevalence, associations with clinicians' demographic and professional characteristics, and contributing circumstances among Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians. The study, conducted in April 2021, consisted of a cross-sectional on-line survey of VA clinicians at 20 VA Medical Centers with professional jurisdiction to place life-sustaining treatment orders working who were from a number of select specialties. The survey collected quantitative data on respondents' demographics, clinical practice characteristics, attitudes and behaviors related to goals of care conversations, intensity of moral distress during "peak-Covid," and qualitative data via an open-ended item asking for respondents to describe contributing circumstances if they had indicated any moral distress. To understand factors associated with heightened moral distress, we analyzed quantitative data using bivariate and multivariable regression analyses and qualitative data using a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic approach. Mixed methods analysis followed, whereby we compared the quantitative and qualitative datasets and integrated findings at the analytic level. Out of 3,396 eligible VA clinicians, 323 responded to the survey (9.5% adjusted response rate). Most respondents (81%) reported at least some moral distress during peak-Covid. In a multivariable logistic regression, female gender (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.53-7.37) was associated with greater odds of moral distress, and practicing in geriatrics/palliative care (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.87) and internal medicine/family medicine/primary care (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22-0.98) were associated with reduced odds of moral distress compared to medical subspecialties. From the 191 respondents who completed the open-ended item, five qualitative themes emerged as moral distress contributors: 1) patient visitation restrictions, 2) anticipatory actions, 3) clinical uncertainty related to Covid, 4) resource shortages, and 5) personal risk of contracting Covid. Mixed methods analysis found that quantitative results were consistent with these last two qualitative themes. In sum, clinician moral distress was prevalent early in the pandemic. This moral distress was associated with individual-, system-, and situation-level contributors. These identified contributors represent leverage points for future intervention to mitigate clinician moral distress and its negative outcomes during future healthcare crises and even during everyday clinical care.
| S-EPMC10503769 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10576220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The opioid epidemic has been fueled by prescribing unnecessary quantities of opioid pills for postoperative use. While evidence mounts that postoperative opioids can be reduced or eliminated, implementing such changes within various institutions can be met with many barriers to adoption. To address excess opioid prescribing within our institutions, we applied a plan-do-study-act (PDSA)-like quality improvement strategy to assess local opioid prescribing and use, modify our institutional protocols, and assess the impacts of the change. The opioid epidemic has been fueled by prescribing unnecessary quantities of opioid pills for postoperative use. While evidence mounts that postoperative opioids can be reduced or eliminated, implementing such changes within various institutions can be met with many barriers to adoption. We describe our approach, findings, and lessons learned from our quality improvement approach. We prospectively recorded home pain pill usage after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) at two academic institutions from July 2016 to July 2019. Patients prospectively recorded their home pain pill use on a take-home log. Other factors, including numeric pain rating scale on the day of discharge, were extracted from patient records. We analyzed our data and modified opioid prescription protocols to meet the reported use data of 80% of patients. We continued collecting data after the protocol change. We also used our prospectively collected data to assess the accuracy of a retrospective phone survey designed to measure postdischarge opioid use. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of patients taking zero opioid pills postdischarge, median pills taken after discharge and the number of excess pills prescribed but not taken. We compared these outcomes before and after protocol change. A total of 266 patients (193 RALP, 73 RAPN) were included. Reducing the standard number of prescribed pills did not increase the percentage of patients taking zero pills postdischarge in either group (RALP: 47% vs. 41%; RAPN 48% vs. 34%). The patients in either group reporting postoperative Day 1 pain score of 0 or 1 were much more likely to use zero postdischarge opioid pills. Our reduction in prescribing protocol resulted in an estimated reduction in excess pills from 1555 excess pills in the prior protocol to just 155 excess pills in the new protocol. Our PDSA-like approach led to an acceptable protocol revision resulting in significant reductions in excess pills released into the community. Reducing the quantity of opioids prescribed postoperatively does not increase the percentage of patients taking zero pills postdischarge. To eliminate opioid use may require no-opioid pathways. Our approach can be used in implementing zero opioid discharge plans and can be applied to opioid reduction interventions at other institutions where barriers to reduced prescribing exist.
| S-EPMC8285762 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimWe plan to conduct a randomised clinical trial among people likely to witness opioid overdose to compare the educational effectiveness of point-of-care naloxone distribution with best-available care, by observing participants' resuscitation skills in a simulated overdose. This mixed methods feasibility study aims to assess the effectiveness of recruitment and retention strategies and acceptability of study procedures.MethodsWe implemented candidate-driven recruitment strategies with verbal consent and destigmatizing study materials in a family practice, emergency department, and addictions service. People ≥16 years of age who are likely to witness overdose were randomized to point-of-care naloxone distribution or referral to an existing program. We evaluated participant skills as a responder to a simulated overdose 3-14 days post-recruitment. Retention strategies included flexible scheduling, reminders, cash compensation and refreshments. The primary outcome was recruitment and retention feasibility, defined as the ability to recruit 28 eligible participants in 28 days, with <50% attrition at the outcome simulation. Acceptability of study procedures and motivations for participation were assessed in a semi-structured interview.ResultsWe enrolled 30 participants over 24 days, and retained 21 participants (70%, 95%CI 56.7-100). The most common motivation for participation was a desire to serve the community or loved ones in distress. Participants reported that study procedures were acceptable and that the outcome simulation provided a supportive and affirming environment.ConclusionThe planned trial is ready for implementation. Recruitment and retention is feasible and study processes are acceptable for people who are likely to witness overdose. (Registration: NCT03821649).
| S-EPMC8244470 | biostudies-literature