Dataset Information

Trends in opioid dispensing after common abdominal and orthopedic surgery procedures in British Columbia: a retrospective cohort analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Postdischarge opioid prescriptions are reportedly much higher in Canada than in other countries. To assess potentially contributing factors, we examined trends after abdominal and orthopedic surgeries in British Columbia (BC).

Methods

Using the BC Ministry of Health's databases on physician billings, hospital discharge abstracts, and medication dispensations in community pharmacies for the period 2003-2016, we assembled a cohort of 263,056 patients who received laparoscopic appendectomy (LA, 11%), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC, 30%), open inguinal or femoral hernia repair (IHR, 20%), total hip arthroplasty (THA, 18%), or total knee arthroplasty (TKA, 22%). Adjusting for covariates using generalized linear modeling, we measured trends in percentages of patients dispensed opioids postdischarge (opioid rate) within 30 days after surgery, by surgery type, opioid type, prior use, surgeon, and trends in morphine milligram equivalents of first dispensations (MME) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Opioid dispensation rates rose steadily. Mean annual increases were 1.7% in LA; 1.3% in LC; 0.8% in IHR; 0.9% in THA; and 0.8% in TKA. By 2016, rates were 69% in LA; 76% in LC; 81% in IHR; 88% in THA; and 94% in TKA. Codeine dispensations fell 2.4% (abdominal) and 3.1% (orthopedic) per year while tramadol dispensations increased 3.6% (abdominal) and 1.7% (orthopedic). Hydromorphone dispensations increased 2.9% per year (orthopedic); oxycodone was level at 22% between 2007 and 2014, but then fell. The mean MME rose 8 mg⋅yr^-1 (95% CI, 7 to 9) (abdominal) and 61 mg⋅yr^-1 (95% CI, 58 to 64) (orthopedic). Variation in rates was greater among abdominal than orthopedic surgeons.

Conclusion

Rising opioid dispensation rates, together with shifts to prescribing higher MME opioids, doubled MME per patient in first dispensations postdischarge after abdominal or orthopedic surgery from 2003 to 2016 in BC.

SUBMITTER: Nann P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9244383 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Increasing use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit is raising concern. Analyses of population-based trends in practice and how hospitals' acquisition of robotic surgical technologies is associated with their use are limited. Objective:To characterize trends in the use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study used clinical registry data from Michigan from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018. Trends were characterized in the use of robotic surgery for common procedures for which traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery was already considered a safe and effective approach for most surgeons when clinically feasible. A multigroup interrupted time series analysis was performed to determine how procedural approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic) change after hospitals launch a robotic surgery program. Data were analyzed from March 1 through April 19, 2019. Exposures:Initiation of robotic surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures:Procedure approach (ie, robotic, open, or laparoscopic). Results:The study cohort included 169?404 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.4 [16.9] years; 90?595 women [53.5%]) at 73 hospitals. The use of robotic surgery increased from 1.8% in 2012 to 15.1% in 2018 (8.4-fold increase; slope, 2.1% per year; 95% CI, 1.9%-2.3%). For certain procedures, the magnitude of the increase was greater; for example, for inguinal hernia repair, the use of robotic surgery increased from 0.7% to 28.8% (41.1-fold change; slope, 5.4% per year; 95% CI, 5.1%-5.7%). The use of robotic surgery increased 8.8% in the first 4 years after hospitals began performing robotic surgery (2.8% per year; 95% CI, 2.7%-2.9%). This trend was associated with a decrease in laparoscopic surgery from 53.2% to 51.3% (difference, -1.9%; 95% CI, -2.2% to -1.6%). Before adopting robotic surgery, hospitals' use of laparoscopic surgery increased 1.3% per year. After adopting robotic surgery, the use of laparoscopic surgery declined 0.3% (difference in trends, -1.6%; 95% CI, -1.7% to -1.5%). Conclusions and Relevance:These results suggest that robotic surgery has continued to diffuse across a broad range of common surgical procedures. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.

Project description:ImportanceSurgeons must balance management of acute postoperative pain with opioid stewardship. Patient-centered methods that immediately evaluate pain and opioid consumption can be used to guide prescribing and shared decision-making.ObjectiveTo assess the difference between the number of opioid tablets prescribed and the self-reported number of tablets taken as well as self-reported pain intensity and ability to manage pain after orthopedic and urologic procedures with use of an automated text messaging system.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study was conducted at a large, urban academic health care system in Pennsylvania. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who underwent orthopedic and urologic procedures and received postoperative prescriptions for opioids were included. Data were collected prospectively using automated text messaging until postoperative day 28, from May 1 to December 31, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the difference between the number of opioid tablets prescribed and the patient-reported number of tablets taken (in oxycodone 5-mg tablet equivalents). Secondary outcomes were self-reported pain intensity (on a scale of 0-10, with 10 being the highest level of pain) and ability to manage pain (on a scale of 0-10, with 10 representing very able to control pain) after orthopedic and urologic procedures.ResultsOf the 919 study participants, 742 (80.7%) underwent orthopedic procedures and 177 (19.2%) underwent urologic procedures. Among those who underwent orthopedic procedures, 384 (51.8%) were women, 491 (66.7%) were White, and the median age was 48 years (interquartile range [IQR], 32-61 years); 514 (69.8%) had an outpatient procedure. Among those who underwent urologic procedures, 145 (84.8%) were men, 138 (80.7%) were White, and the median age was 56 years (IQR, 40-67 years); 106 (62%) had an outpatient procedure. The mean (SD) pain score on day 4 after orthopedic procedures was 4.72 (2.54), with a mean (SD) change by day 21 of -0.40 (1.91). The mean (SD) ability to manage pain score on day 4 was 7.32 (2.59), with a mean (SD) change of -0.80 (2.72) by day 21. The mean (SD) pain score on day 4 after urologic procedures was 3.48 (2.43), with a mean (SD) change by day 21 of -1.50 (2.12). The mean (SD) ability to manage pain score on day 4 was 7.34 (2.81), with a mean (SD) change of 0.80 (1.75) by day 14. The median quantity of opioids prescribed for patients who underwent orthopedic procedures was high compared with self-reported consumption (20 tablets [IQR, 15-30 tablets] vs 6 tablets used [IQR, 0-14 tablets]), similar to findings for patients who underwent urologic procedures (7 tablets [IQR, 5-10 tablets] vs 1 tablet used [IQR, 0-4 tablets]). Over the study period, 9452 of 15 581 total tablets prescribed (60.7%) were unused. A total of 589 patients (64.1%) used less than half of the amount prescribed, and 256 patients (27.8%) did not use any opioids (179 [24.1%] who underwent orthopedic procedures and 77 [43.5%] who underwent urologic procedures).Conclusions and relevanceIn this quality improvement study of adult patients reporting use of opioids after common orthopedic and urologic surgical procedures through a text messaging system, the quantities of opioids prescribed and the quantity consumed differed. Patient-reported data collected through text messaging may support clinicians in tailoring prescriptions and guide shared decision-making to limit excess quantities of prescribed opioids.

Project description:BackgroundVisits to the emergency department are critical opportunities to engage individuals after an overdose. We sought to estimate and compare the 12-month mortality between persons with visits to the emergency department related to opioid overdose and those with non-overdose-related visits.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Provincial Overdose Cohort, which contains data for patients in British Columbia who had an opioid-related overdose between 2015 and 2017, along with a 20% random sample of BC residents for comparison. We examined all nonfatal visits to the emergency department between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2016, among persons aged 14 to 74 years and compared the 12-month mortality between those with overdose-related visits and those with non-overdose-related visits. We estimated the hazard ratio for death, with adjustment for age, sex, comorbidity and disposition (discharged or left against medical advice).ResultsWe included 3593 persons with overdose-related visits and 216 453 with non-overdose-related visits to the emergency department. Those with overdose-related visits were younger, were predominantly male and had more mental health conditions. The 12-month crude mortality probability was 5.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7%-6.2%) in this group and 1.7% (95% CI 1.6%-1.8%) among those with non-overdose-related visits. After adjustment, for persons who were discharged, the 12-month mortality hazard was 3.5 (95% CI 3.0-4.2) times higher among those with overdose-related visits than those with non-overdose-related visits. For persons who left against medical advice, the mortality hazard was 7.1 (95% CI 4.0-12.5) times higher among those with opioid overdose.InterpretationAmong persons with overdose-related visits to the emergency department, 12-month mortality was higher than among those with non-overdose-related visits. Overdose-related visits should prompt urgent evidence-based interventions (e.g., take-home naloxone kits, buprenorphine-naloxone induction) to prevent future deaths.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2014, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency reclassified hydrocodone from Schedule III to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, resulting in new restrictions on refills. The authors hypothesized that hydrocodone rescheduling led to decreases in total opioid dispensing within 30 days of surgery and reduced new long-term opioid dispensing among surgical patients.MethodsThe authors studied privately insured, opioid-naïve adults undergoing 10 general or orthopedic surgeries between 2011 and 2015. The authors conducted a differences-in-differences analysis that compared overall opioid dispensing before versus after the rescheduling rule for patients treated by surgeons who frequently prescribed hydrocodone before rescheduling (i.e., patients who were functionally exposed to rescheduling's impact) while adjusting for secular trends via a comparison group of patients treated by surgeons who rarely prescribed hydrocodone (i.e., unexposed patients). The primary outcome was any filled opioid prescription between 90 and 180 days after surgery; secondary outcomes included the 30-day refill rate and the amount of opioids dispensed initially and at 30 days postoperatively.ResultsThe sample included 65,136 patients. The percentage of patients filling a prescription beyond 90 days was similar after versus before rescheduling (absolute risk difference, -1.1%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 0.1%; P = 0.084). The authors estimated the rescheduling rule to be associated with a 45.4-mg oral morphine equivalent increase (difference-in-differences estimate; 95% CI, 34.2-56.7 mg; P < 0.001) in initial opioid dispensing, a 4.1% absolute decrease (95% CI, -5.5% to -2.7%; P < 0.001) in refills within 30 days, and a 37.7-mg oral morphine equivalent increase (95% CI, 20.6-54.8 mg; P = 0.008) in opioids dispensed within 30 days.ConclusionsAmong patients treated by surgeons who frequently prescribed hydrocodone before the Drug Enforcement Agency 2014 hydrocodone rescheduling rule, rescheduling did not impact long-term opioid receipt, although it was associated with an increase in opioid dispensing within 30 days of surgery.

Project description:BACKGROUND: In British Columbia, Canada, all necessary medical services are funded publicly. Concerned with growing wait lists in the mid-1990s, the provincial government started providing extra funding for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operations annually. Although aimed at improving access, it is not known whether supplementary funding changed the time that patients spent on wait lists for CABG. We sought to determine whether the period of registration on wait lists had an effect on time to isolated CABG and whether the period effect was similar across priority groups. METHODS: Using records from a population-based registry, we studied the wait-list time before and after supplementary funding became available. We compared the number of weeks from registration to surgery for equal proportions of patients in synthetic cohorts defined by five registration periods in the 1990s. RESULTS: Overall, 9,231 patients spent a total of 137,126 person-weeks on the wait lists. The time to surgery increased by the middle of the decade, and decreased toward the end of the decade. Relative to the 1991-92 registration period, the conditional weekly probabilities of undergoing surgery were 30% lower among patients registered on the wait lists in 1995-96, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.70 (0.65-0.76), and 23% lower in 1997-98 patients, HR = 0.77 (0.71-0.83), while there were no differences with 1999-2000 patients, HR = 0.94 (0.88-1.02), after adjusting for priority group at registration, comorbidity, age and sex. We found that the effect of registration period was different across priority groups. CONCLUSION: Our results provide evidence that time to CABG shortened after supplementary funding was provided on an annual basis to tertiary care hospitals within a single publicly funded health system. One plausible explanation is that these hospitals had capacity to increase the number of operations. At the same time, the effect was not uniform across priority groups indicating that changes in clinical practice should be considered when adding extra funding to reduce wait lists.