Dataset Information

Evaluating the Effects of Opioid Prescribing Policies on Patient Outcomes in a Safety-net Primary Care Clinic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

After decades of liberal opioid prescribing, multiple efforts have been made to reduce reliance upon opioids in clinical care. Little is known about the effects of opioid prescribing policies on outcomes beyond opioid prescribing.

Objective

To evaluate the combined effects of multiple opioid prescribing policies implemented in a safety-net primary care clinic in San Francisco, CA, in 2013-2014.

Design

Retrospective cohort study and conditional difference-in-differences analysis of nonrandomized clinic-level policies.

Patients

273 patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in 2013 at either the treated (n=151) or control clinic (n=122) recruited and interviewed in 2017-2018.

Interventions

Policies establishing standard protocols for dispensing opioid refills and conducting urine toxicology testing, and a new committee facilitating opioid treatment decisions for complex patient cases.

Main measures

Opioid prescription (active prescription, mean dose in morphine milligram equivalents [MME]) from electronic medical charts, and heroin and opioid analgesics not prescribed to the patient (any use, use frequency) from a retrospective interview.

Key results

The interventions were associated with a reduction in mean prescribed opioid dose in the first three post-policy years (year 1 conditional difference-in-differences estimate: -52.0 MME [95% confidence interval: -109.9, -10.6]; year 2: -106.2 MME [-195.0, -34.6]; year 3: -98.6 MME [-198.7, -23.9]; year 4: -72.6 MME [-160.4, 3.6]). Estimates suggest a possible positive association between the interventions and non-prescribed opioid analgesic use (year 3: 5.2 absolute percentage points [-0.1, 11.2]) and use frequency (year 3: 0.21 ordinal frequency scale points [0.00, 0.47]) in the third post-policy year.

Conclusions

Clinic-level opioid prescribing policies were associated with reduced dose, although the control clinic achieved similar reductions by the fourth post-policy year, and the policies may have been associated with increased non-prescribed opioid analgesic use. Clinicians should balance the urgency to reduce opioid prescribing with potential harms from rapid change.

SUBMITTER: Rowe CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8738839 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTime pressure to provide a quick fix is commonly cited as a reason why opioids are frequently prescribed in the United States, but there is little evidence of an association between appointment timing and clinical decision-making. As the workday progresses and appointments run behind schedule, physicians may be more likely to prescribe opioids.ObjectiveTo estimate whether characteristics of appointment timing are associated with clinical decision-making about pain treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study of physician behavior used data from electronic health record systems in primary care offices in the United States to analyze primary care appointments occurring in 2017 for patients with a new painful condition who had not received an opioid prescription within the past year.Main outcomes and measuresThe association between treatment decisions and 2 dimensions of appointment timing (order of appointment occurrence and delay relative to scheduled start time) were assessed. The rates of opioid prescribing were measured and compared with rates of nonopioid pain medication (ie, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) prescribing and referral to physical therapy. All rates were estimated within the same physician using physician fixed effects, adjusting for patient, appointment, and seasonal characteristics.ResultsAmong 678 319 primary care appointments (642 262 patients; 392 422 [61.1%] women) with 5603 primary care physicians, the likelihood that an appointment resulted in an opioid prescription increased by 33% as the workday progressed (1st to 3rd appointment, 4.0% [95% CI, 3.9%-4.1%] vs 19th to 21st appointment, 5.3% [95% CI. 5.1%-5.6%]; P < .001) and by 17% as appointments ran behind schedule (0-9 minutes late, 4.4% [95% CI, 4.3%-4.6%] vs ≥60 minutes late, 5.2% [95% CI, 5.0%-5.4%]; P < .001). Prescribing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and referral to physical therapy did not display similar patterns.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that, even within an individual physician's schedule, clinical decision-making for opioid prescribing varies by the timing and lateness of appointments.

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:ImportanceThe patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model holds promise for improving primary care delivery, but it has not been adequately tested in teaching settings.Design, setting, and participantsWe implemented an intervention guided by PCMH principles at a safety-net teaching clinic with resident physician providers. Two similar clinics served as controls.Main outcomes and measuresUsing a cross-sectional design, we measured the effect on patient and resident satisfaction using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey and a validated teaching clinic survey, respectively. Both surveys were conducted at baseline and 1 year after the intervention. We also measured the effect on emergency department and hospital utilization.ResultsFollowing implementation of our intervention, the clinic’s score on the National Committee for Quality Assurance’s PCMH certification tool improved from 35 to 53 of 100 possible points, although our clinic did not achieve all must-pass elements to qualify as a PCMH. During the 1-year study period, 4676 patients were exposed to the intervention; 39.9% of these used at least 1 program component. Compared with baseline, patient-reported access and overall satisfaction improved to a greater extent in the intervention clinic, and the composite satisfaction rating increased from 48% to 65% in the intervention clinic vs from 50% to 59% in the control sites (P = .04). The improvements were particularly notable for questions relating to access. For example, satisfaction with urgent appointment scheduling increased from 12% to 53% in the intervention clinic vs from 14% to 18% in the control clinics (P < .001). Resident satisfaction also improved in the intervention clinic: the composite satisfaction score increased from 39% to 51% in the intervention clinic vs a decrease from 46% to 42% in the control clinics (P = .01). Emergency department utilization did not differ significantly between the intervention and control clinics, and hospitalizations increased from 26 to 27 visits per 1000 patients per month in the intervention clinic vs a decrease from 28 to 25 in the control clinics (P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceOur PCMH-guided intervention, which represented a modest but substantive step toward the PCMH vision, had favorable effects on patient and resident satisfaction at a safety-net teaching clinic but did not reduce emergency department or hospital utilization in the first year. Our experience may provide lessons for other teaching clinics in safety-net settings hoping to implement PCMH-guided reforms.

Project description:BackgroundIn response to the opioid overdose crisis in the United States, many states implemented policies to guide opioid prescribing, but their impact on overdose mortality (prescription and non-prescription) remains poorly understood. We examined the impact of U.S. state opioid-prescribing policies on opioid overdose mortality following implementation.MethodsWe calculated opioid overdose mortality rates from 1999-2016 by U.S. state using the CDC WONDER database, overall and separately for overdose deaths from prescription and non-prescription opioids. For each state, policies active on 1/1/2014 were reviewed for the presence and strength of six provisions recommending judicious opioid prescribing practices; "strong" provisions used the words "should," "shall," or "must". Interrupted time series (ITS) tested the association of each strong provision with overdose mortality, overall and separately for prescription and non-prescription opioids, in the two years following implementation. Sensitivity analyses compared between states, used time-lagged analyses, and excluded synthetic opioids from non-prescription opioid deaths.ResultsAll six provisions had consistent direction of effect in ITS and sensitivity analyses. Strong provisions for prescriber training and limits on opioid dose reduced the slope of overall and prescription opioid overdose mortality in both ITS and sensitivity analyses. Reduced non-prescription opioid overdose mortality was only associated with strong provision for prescriber training. Some provisions had a negative impact. In ITS, strong provision for prescriber response to misuse increased the slope of non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. Strong provision for mandatory prescription drug monitoring program use had no relationship with overdose mortality in ITS and was associated with increased overall, prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose mortality in between-state sensitivity analysis.ConclusionOpioid prescribing policies in U.S. states at the peak of the prescription opioid epidemic had modest mortality benefit, and did not reduce non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. A strong provision for prescriber training was the only provision associated with reduced prescription and non-prescription opioid overdose mortality. These findings can inform future efforts addressing prescription drug epidemics.