Shared Decision-Making Tool for Opioid Prescribing After Ambulatory Orthopedic Surgery in Veterans: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
We examined whether an educational, shared-decision-making tool designed to empower patients, individualize pain management, and maximize use of nonopioid, over-the-counter analgesics reduces opioid use and waste while maintaining adequate pain relief.Methods
We developed an educational, shared-decision-making tool regarding postoperative pain medication for outpatient hand surgery. Patients randomized to groups with and without the tool were surveyed for 4 weeks after surgery. Survey variables included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain intensity and pain interference scores, as well as the number of oxycodone or over-the-counter pills taken. Results were compared using chi-squared, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and Welch's t tests.Results
Fifty-three patients participated: 25 in the shared-tool group and 28 in the no-tool group. The mean age was 60 years, with more women in the no-tool group than the shared-tool group (n =17 versus 11, respectively). The shared-tool group averaged 6.4 prescribed oxycodone pills, versus 10 for the no-tool group (P < .01). The median numbers of oxycodone pills taken the first week after surgery were 2 (interquartile range, 6) for the shared-tool group and 3 (interquartile range, 6) for the no-tool group (P = .97). Patient-reported outcome measures for pain intensity and pain interference were not significantly different for weeks 1, 3, and 4 after surgery. Pain interference was significantly lower in week 2 in the shared-tool group (difference, -4.4; 95% confidence interval, -8.57 to -0.30; P = .04).Conclusions
The shared-tool group had equivalent or better pain control and were prescribed a lower number of opioid pain pills than the no-tool group. Both groups used nonopioid medications, with no difference in the types of over-the-counter medications used. Shared decision-making strategies could be applied to other outpatient orthopedic surgical settings, and may reduce the amount of opioids prescribed without compromising pain control.Type of study/level of evidence
Therapeutic II.
SUBMITTER: Bolson R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9308163 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effects of shared decision making using a simple decision aid for opioid prescribing after hysterectomy. METHODS:We conducted a prospective quality initiative study including all patients undergoing hysterectomy for benign, nonobstetric indications between March 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018, at our academic institution. Using a visual decision aid, patients received uniform education regarding postoperative pain management. They were then educated on the department's guidelines regarding the maximum number of tablets recommended per prescription and the mean number of opioid tablets used by a similar cohort of patients in a previously published study at our institution. Patients were then asked to choose their desired number of tablets to receive on discharge. Structured telephone interviews were conducted 14 days after surgery. The primary outcome was total opioids prescribed before compared with after implementation of the decision aid. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, and refill requests after intervention implementation. RESULTS:Of 170 eligible patients, 159 (93.5%) used the decision aid (one patient who used the decision aid was subsequently excluded from the analysis owing to significant perioperative complications), including 110 (69.6%) laparoscopic, 40 (25.3%) vaginal, and eight (5.3%) abdominal hysterectomies. Telephone surveys were completed for 89.2% (n=141) of participants. Student's t-test showed that patients who participated in the decision aid (post-decision aid cohort) were discharged with significantly fewer oral morphine equivalents than patients who underwent hysterectomy before implementation of the decision aid (pre-decision aid cohort) (92±35 vs 160±81, P<.01), with no significant change in the number of requested refills (9.5% [n=15] vs 5.7% [n=14], P=.15). In the post-decision aid cohort, 76.6% of patients (n=121) chose fewer tablets than the guideline-allotted maximum. Approximately 76% of patients (n=102) reported having leftover tablets. CONCLUSION:This quality improvement initiative illustrates that a simple decision aid can result in a significant decrease in opioid prescribing without compromising patient satisfaction or postoperative pain management.
| S-EPMC6945818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether a shared decision-making intervention decreases the quantity of oxycodone tablets prescribed after cesarean delivery.TechniqueA tablet computer-based decision aid formed the basis of a shared decision-making session to guide opioid prescribing after cesarean delivery. Women first received information on typical trajectories of pain resolution and expected opioid use after cesarean delivery and then chose the number of tablets of 5 mg oxycodone they would be prescribed up to the institutional standard prescription of 40 tablets.ExperienceFrom April 11, 2016, to June 10, 2016, 105 women were screened, 75 were eligible, and 51 consented to participate; one patient was excluded after enrollment as a result of prolonged hospitalization. The median number of tablets (5 mg oxycodone) women chose for their prescription was 20.0 (interquartile range 15.0-25.0), which was less than the standard 40-tablet prescription (P<.001).ConclusionA shared decision-making approach to opioid prescribing after cesarean delivery was associated with approximately a 50% decrease in the number of opioids prescribed postoperatively in this cohort compared with our institutional standard prescription. This approach is a promising strategy to reduce the amount of leftover opioid medication after treatment of acute postcesarean pain.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02770612.
| S-EPMC5482786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study examined the proportion of pregnant women with opioid use disorder (OUD) who made a decision to continue or taper pharmacotherapy for the treatment of OUD after using a shared decision-making aid and determined whether the aid reflected the principles of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS).MethodsA shared decision-making aid was developed with the IPDAS instrument to assist pregnant women with OUD receiving care at an outpatient obstetrics clinic in their decision to continue or taper pharmacotherapy for the treatment of OUD. After using the aid, the women (N=22) completed an anonymous survey about the extent to which the aid adhered to IPDAS principles.ResultsEighty-two percent (22 of 27) of eligible participants agreed to take part in the study. After the shared decision-making process, 95% (21 of 22) reported choosing to either continue (64%, 14 of 22) or taper (36%, 8 of 22) pharmacotherapy for the treatment of OUD. Participants agreed that they were provided with sufficient information (96%, 21 of 22), outcome probabilities (91%, 20 of 22), and decisional guidance (86%-95% [19 and 21 of 22, respectively]) to make an informed decision. Further, women reported that their choice reflected their values and preferences (77%-91% [17 and 20 of 22, respectively]).ConclusionsThis shared decision aid provides a tool for providers to use with pregnant women with OUD to ensure that patients make informed treatment decisions that reflect their individual preferences and values.
| S-EPMC9176026 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to determine the factors influencing pancreatic surgery patients' perceptions of the shared decision-making process (SDM).BackgroundDecision-making in pancreatic surgery is complicated by the risk of morbidity and mortality and risk of early recurrence of disease. Improvement in SDM has the potential to improve the receipt of goal- and value-concordant care.MethodsThis cross-sectional survey included patients who underwent pancreatic surgery. The following components were studied in relation to SDM: modified satisfaction with decision scale (SWD), modified decisional regret scale (DRS), quality of physician and patient interaction, and the impact of quality of life (FACT-Hep). Correlations were computed using Pearson's correlation score and a regression model.ResultsThe survey completion rate was 72.2% (of 40/55) and the majority (72.5%) of patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy. There were significant positive relationships between the SDM measure and (DRS, SWD; r = 0.70, P < 0.001) and responses to questions regarding how well the patient's actual recovery matched their expectations before treatment (r = 0.62, P < 0.001). The quality of the physician-patient relationship correlated with how well recovery matched expectations (r = 0.53, P = 0.002). SDM measure scores were significant predictors of the decision evaluation measure (R2(adj) = 0.48, P < 0.001), FACT-Hep (R2(adj) = 0.15, P < 0.001), and recovery expectations measure (R2(adj) = 0.37, P < 0.001).ConclusionsImproved SDM in pancreatic surgery is associated with more realistic recovery expectations, decreased decisional regret, and improved quality of life.
| S-EPMC10431427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM-related outcomes. METHODS:This was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently. RESULTS:Thirty-two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty-six per cent of 13?176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient- or surgeon-driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision-making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty-five different SDM-related outcomes were reported. CONCLUSION:At present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics.
| S-EPMC6282808 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend engaging patients in shared decision making for common orthopedic procedures; however, limited work has assessed what is occurring in practice. This study assessed the quality of shared decision making for elective hip and knee replacement and spine surgery at four network-affiliated hospitals.MethodsA cross-sectional sample of 875 adult patients undergoing total hip or knee joint replacement (TJR) for osteoarthritis or spine surgery for lumbar herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis was selected. Patients were mailed a survey including measures of Shared Decision Making (SDMP scale) and Informed, Patient-Centered (IPC) decisions. We examined decision-making across sites, surgeons, and conditions, and whether the decision-making measures were associated with better health outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for clustering of patients within surgeons.ResultsSix hundred forty-six surveys (74% response rate) were returned with sufficient responses for analysis. Patients who had TJR reported lower SDMP scores than patients who had spine surgery (2.2 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). Patients who had TJR were more likely to make IPC decisions (OA = 70%, Spine = 41%; p < 0.001). SDMP and IPC scores varied widely across surgeons, but the site was not predictive of SDMP scores or IPC decisions (all p > 0.09). Higher SDMP scores and IPC decisions were associated with larger improvements in global health outcomes for patients who had TJR, but not patients who had spine surgery.ConclusionsMeasures of shared decision making and decision quality varied among patients undergoing common elective orthopedic procedures. Routine measurement of shared decision making provides insight into areas of strength across these different orthopedic conditions as well as areas in need of improvement.
| S-EPMC8605511 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePatient values and preferences are an important component to decision making when tradeoffs exist that impact quality of life, such as tradeoffs between stroke prevention and hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) contemplating anticoagulant therapy. Our objective is to describe the development of an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) to assist the process of integrating patients' preferences into this decision.Materials and methodsCHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED were used to calculate risks for stroke and hemorrhage. We developed a Markov decision analytic model as a computational engine to integrate patient-specific risk for stroke and hemorrhage and individual patient values for relevant outcomes in decisions about anticoagulant therapy.ResultsIndividual patient preferences for health-related outcomes may have greater or lesser impact on the choice of optimal antithrombotic therapy, depending upon the balance of patient-specific risks for ischemic stroke and major bleeding. These factors have been incorporated into patient-tailored booklets which, along with an informational video, were developed through an iterative process with clinicians and patient focus groups.Key limitationsCurrent risk prediction models for hemorrhage, such as the HAS-BLED, used in the AFGuST, do not incorporate all potentially significant risk factors. Novel oral anticoagulant agents recently approved for use in the United States, Canada, and Europe have not been included in the AFGuST. Rather, warfarin has been used as a conservative proxy for all oral anticoagulant therapy.ConclusionsWe present a proof of concept that a patient-tailored decision-support tool could bridge the gap between guidelines and practice by incorporating individual patient's stroke and bleeding risks and their values for major bleeding events and stroke to facilitate a shared decision making process. If effective, the AFGuST could be used as an adjunct to published guidelines to enhance patient-centered conversations about the anticoagulation management.
| S-EPMC4708062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reports exist regarding a gradual approach to the care of patients with differences of sexual development. Each patient and family have different values and styles of learning that have to be taken into account. The goals of care should include education about the condition, counseling of the patient and family, and a complete outlining of treatment options. Motivated by a call from the 2010 Health Reform Law for the use of shared decision-making tools and the emphasis placed on these issues by the DSD Consensus Statement, we sought to develop and implement such tools for the DSD population.1-3 Thus, we developed an organized checklist for providers to share with a patients and families affected by CAIS, beginning with the initial visit. The development of the document enlisted input from physicians, clinical coordinator, advocacy groups and affected individuals. It allows providers to explain the process of care and develop a plan for delivery of that care over multiple visits spanning six months or more. The checklist is divided into five sections: 1) An overview addressing how much information is desired and in what manner the patient prefers to obtain information; 2) A preferred words list so that the patient can choose nomenclature that is most comfortable; 3) A list of topics to review over the course of multiple visits; 4) A list of questions to be answered by the providers or other resources over time, and; 5) A list of concerns to be addressed before surgical intervention is considered. An organized approach to long-term delivery of compassionate care and accurate information can be facilitated for patients with CAIS by the use of a shared decision-making checklist. Documentation of the care delivery process can stimulate referral to peer support and promote fully informed consent for treatment decisions. The use of the checklist should encourage trust in the provider, as well as aid in identifying and addressing stressors for the patient and family. The checklist will be updated and revised as new treatments and advanced technology emerges.
| S-EPMC7208826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of state opioid prescribing cap laws on opioid prescribing after surgery.Data sourcesOptumLabs Data Warehouse administrative claims data covering all 50 states from July 2012 through June 2019.Study designWe included individuals from 20 states that had implemented prescribing cap laws without exemptions for postsurgical pain by June 2019 and individuals from 16 control states plus the District of Columbia. We used a difference-in-differences approach accounting for differential timing in law implementation across states to estimate the effects of state prescribing cap laws on postsurgical prescribing of opioids. Outcome measures included filling an opioid prescription within 30 days after surgery; filling opioid prescriptions of specific doses or durations; and the number, days' supply, daily dose, and pill quantity of opioid prescriptions. To assess the validity of the parallel counterfactual trends assumption, we examined differences in outcome trends between law-implementing and control states in the years preceding law implementation using an equivalence testing framework.Data collection/extraction methodsWe included the first surgery in the study period for opioid-naïve individuals undergoing one of eight common surgical procedures.Principal findingsState prescribing cap laws were associated with 0.109 lower days' supply of postsurgical opioids on the log scale (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -0.139, -0.080) but were not associated with the number (Average treatment effect on the treated [ATT]: -0.011; 95% CI: -0.043, 0.021) or daily dose of postsurgical opioid prescriptions (ATT: -0.013; 95% CI: -0.030, 0.005). The negative association observed between prescribing cap laws and the probability of filling a postsurgical opioid prescription (ATT: -0.041; 95% CI: -0.054, -0.028) was likely spurious, given differences between law-implementing and control states in the pre-law period.ConclusionsPrescribing cap laws appear to have minimal effects on postsurgical opioid prescribing.
| S-EPMC9441291 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.
| S-EPMC7018920 | biostudies-literature