Dataset Information

Implementation of mandatory opioid prescribing limits in North Carolina: healthcare administrator and prescriber perspectives

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recent increases in state laws to reduce opioid prescribing have demonstrated a need to understand how they are interpreted and implemented in healthcare systems. The purpose of this study was to explore the systems, strategies, and resources that hospital administrators and prescribers used to implement the 2017 North Carolina Strengthen Opioid Prevention (STOP) Act opioid prescribing limits, which limited initial prescriptions to a five (for acute) or seven (for post-surgical) days’ supply.

Methods

We interviewed 14 hospital administrators and 38 prescribers with degrees in medicine, nursing, pharmacy, business administration and public health working across North Carolina. Interview guides, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, explored barriers and facilitators to implementation. Interview topics included communication, resources, and hospital system support. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, then analyzed using flexible coding, integrating inductive and deductive coding, to inform analytic code development and identify themes.

Results

We identified three main themes around implementation of STOP act mandated prescribing limits: organizational communication, prescriber education, and changes in the electronic medical record (EMR) systems. Administrators reflected on implementation in the context of raising awareness and providing reminders to facilitate changes in prescriber behavior, operationalized through email and in-person communications as well as dedicated resources to EMR changes. Prescribers noted administrative communications about prescribing limits often focused on legality, suggesting a directive of the organization’s policy rather than a passive reminder. Prescribers expressed a desire for more spaces to have their questions answered and resources for patient communications. While hospital administrators viewed compliance with the law as a priority, prescribers reflected on concerns for adequately managing their patients’ pain and limited time for clinical care.

Conclusions

Hospital administrators and prescribers approached implementation of the STOP act prescribing limits with different mindsets. While administrators were focused on policy compliance, prescribers were focused on their patients’ needs. Strategies to implement the mandate then had to balance patient needs with policy compliance. As states continue to legislate to prevent opioid overdose deaths, understanding how laws are implemented by healthcare systems and prescribers will improve their effectiveness through tailoring and maximizing available resources.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07230-5.

SUBMITTER: Blackburn N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8565171 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealth systems are increasingly implementing interventions to reduce older patients' use of low-value medications. However, prescribers' perspectives on medication value and the acceptability of interventions to reduce low-value prescribing are poorly understood.ObjectiveTo identify the characteristics that affect the value of a medication and those factors influencing low-value prescribing from the perspective of primary care physicians.DesignQualitative study using semi-structured interviews.SettingAcademic and community primary care practices within University of Pittsburgh Medical Center health system.ParticipantsSixteen primary care physicians.MeasurementsWe elicited 16 prescribers' perspectives on definitions and examples of low-value prescribing in older adults, the factors that incentivize them to engage in such prescribing, and the characteristics of interventions that would make them less likely to engage in low-value prescribing.ResultsWe identified three key themes. First, prescribers viewed low-value prescribing among older adults as common, characterized both by features of the medications themselves and of the particular patients to whom they were prescribed. Second, prescribers described the causes of low-value prescribing as multifactorial, with factors related to patients, prescribers, and the health system as a whole, making low-value prescribing a default practice pattern. Third, interventions addressing low-value prescribing must minimize the cognitive load and time pressures that make low-value prescribing common. Interventions increasing time pressure or cognitive load, such as increased documentation, were considered less acceptable.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that low-value prescribing is a well-recognized phenomenon, and that interventions to reduce low-value prescribing must consider physicians' perspectives and address the specific patient, prescriber and health system factors that make low-value prescribing a default practice.

Project description:Importance:Since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published opioid prescribing guidelines in March 2016, 31 states have implemented legislation to restrict the duration of opioid prescriptions for acute pain. However, the association of these policies with the amount of opioid prescribed following surgery remains unknown. Objective:To examine the association of opioid prescribing duration limits with postoperative opioid prescribing in Massachusetts and Connecticut, the first 2 states to implement limits after March 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants:This interrupted time series analysis and cross-sectional study examined immediate level and slope changes in monthly outcomes after prescribing limit implementation in Massachusetts and Connecticut. These states implemented 7-day limits on initial opioid prescriptions on March 14, 2016, and July 1, 2016, respectively. Using the 2014 to 2017 IBM MarketScan Research Database, 16?281 opioid-naive adults in these states who filled a prescription within 3 days of surgery between July 1, 2014, and November 30, 2017, were identified. Data were analyzed from December 2018 to June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was the prescription size in oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) for the initial postoperative opioid prescription (one 5/325 mg hydrocodone-acetaminophen pill?=?5 OMEs). Secondary outcomes included days supplied in the initial prescription and the proportion of initial prescriptions exceeding a 7-day supply. Results:In total, 16?281 opioid-naive patients (9708 [59.6%] female; median [interquartile range] age range, 45-54 [35-44 to 55-64] years) undergoing surgical procedures were included. In Massachusetts, there were 5340 and 5435 patients in the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively. In Connecticut, there were 2869 and 2637 patients in the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively. Limit implementation in Massachusetts was associated with an immediate mean level decrease in prescription size (-38 OMEs [95% CI, -44 to -32 OMEs]) and with a mean decrease in slope (-1.5 OMEs/mo [95% CI, -2.1 to -0.9 OMEs/mo]). Implementation was also associated with an immediate mean level decrease in days supplied (-0.4 days [95% CI, -0.6 to -0.2 days]) and the proportion of prescriptions exceeding a 7-day supply (-5.9 percentage points [95% CI, -7.9 to -3.9 percentage points]). In contrast, limit implementation in Connecticut was not associated with level or slope changes in any outcome. Conclusions and Relevance:Opioid prescribing duration limits had a variable association with postoperative opioid prescribing in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The mean opioid prescription size filled, days supplied, and prescribing exceeding a 7-day supply decreased after limit implementation in Massachusetts only. Given the potential differences in policy dissemination and uptake, efforts to reduce opioid prescribing should also include surgeon education and evidence-based prescribing recommendations.

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.

Project description:IntroductionPhysicians are a critical clinical resource for patient care. Yet physician recruitment has been considerably understudied, particularly in substance use disorder (SUD) settings. This study proposes a conceptual model called the "Physician Recruitment Descriptive Factors Framework" to investigate the role of environmental, organizational, and individual factors in the use of physician recruitment strategies.MethodsThe study setting was 75 sites that provided outpatient SUD treatment services in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin from 2016 to 2019. Central to the analysis is the use of five targeted physician recruitment strategies. The study investigated whether financial conditions, location (urban v. non-urban), external implementation coaching, and recruiters' roles influenced use of the targeted physician recruitment strategies.ResultsDuring the study period, a formal plan to recruit physicians was the most common strategy used (n = 67.6 %). The director or chief executive officer (CEO) was most likely to conduct physician recruitment (n = 58.7 %). During the study, use of four of the five recruitment strategies significantly declined (at p ≤ 0.01), while the perceived need for new prescribing capacity significantly declined (p ≤ 0.01), and prescribers per site increased from 1.54 to 3.21. Sixty-four percent of this increase in prescribers was due to more physician prescribers, while 36 % was due to the onset of the ability of advanced nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe buprenorphine. In year 3 of the study, the strategies most closely aligned with the current number of prescribers were conducting weekly outreach to prescriber candidates (p = .018), having a dedicated prescriber recruiter (p = .011), and having a dedicated budget for prescriber recruiting (p = .002).ConclusionsThe study describes which physician recruitment strategies SUD treatment sites used and how the need to recruit physicians for specialty treatment SUD clinics declined as prescriber capacity increased. The proposed multi-level framework provides the scaffolding for future physician recruitment research and practice.