The Use and Impact of a Decision Support Tool for Appendicitis Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Since introducing new and alternative treatment options may increase decisional conflict, we aimed to describe the use of the decision support tool (DST) and its impact on treatment preference and decisional conflict. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy, with both approaches associated with a different set of risks (e.g., recurrence vs surgical complications) and benefits (e.g., more rapid return to work vs decreased chance of readmission). Patients often have limited knowledge of these treatment options and decision support tools that include video-based educational materials and questions to elicit patient preferences about outcomes may be helpful. Concurrent to the Comparing Outcomes of Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, our group developed a DST for appendicitis treatment (www.appyornot.org). METHODS: A retrospective cohort including people who self-reported current appendicitis and used the AppyOrNot DST between 2021-2023. Treatment preferences before- and after- use of the DST, demographic information, and Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) were reported after completing the DST. RESULTS: 8,243 people from 66 countries and all 50 US states accessed the DST. Before the DST, 14% had a strong preference for antibiotics and 31% for appendectomy, with 55% undecided. After using the DST, the proportion in the undecided category decreased to 49% (P<0.0001). 52% of those who completed the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Score (DCS) (n=356) reported the lowest level of decisional conflict (<25) after using the DST; 43% had a DCS score of 25-50, 5.1% had a DCS score of >50 and 2.5% had and DCS score of >75. CONCLUSION: The publicly available DST appyornot.org reduced the proportion that was undecided about which treatment they favored and had a modest influence on those with strong treatment preferences. Decisional conflict was not common after use. The use of this DST is now a component of a nationwide implementation program aimed at improving the way surgeons share information about appendicitis treatment options. If its use can be successfully implemented, this may be a model for improving communication about treatment for patients experiencing emergency health conditions.

Learning from the implementation of a surgical opioid reduction initiative in an integrated health system: a qualitative study among providers and patients.

BACKGROUND: Surgical opioid overprescribing can result in long-term use or misuse. Between July 2018 and March 2019, the multicomponent intervention, Minimizing Opioid Prescribing in Surgery (MOPiS) was implemented in the general surgery clinics of five hospitals and successfully reduced opioid prescribing. To date, various studies have shown a positive outcome of similar reduction initiatives. However, in addition to evaluating the impact on clinical outcomes, it is important to understand the implementation process of an intervention to extend sustainability of interventions and allow for dissemination of the intervention into other contexts. This study aims to evaluate the contextual factors impacting intervention implementation. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews held with providers and patients of the general surgery clinics of five hospitals of a single health system between March and November of 2019. Interview questions focused on how contextual factors affected implementation of the intervention. We coded interview transcripts deductively, using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify the relevant contextual factors. Content analyses were conducted using a constant comparative approach to identify overarching themes. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 clinicians (e.g., surgeons, nurses), 1 quality representative, 1 scheduler, and 28 adult patients and identified 3 key themes. First, we found high variability in the responses of clinicians and patients to the intervention. There was a strong need for intervention components to be locally adaptable, particularly for the format and content of the patient and clinician education materials. Second, surgical pain management should be recognized as a team effort. We identified specific gaps in the engagement of team members, including nurses. We also found that the hierarchical relationships between surgical residents and attendings impacted implementation. Finally, we found that established patient and clinician views on opioid prescribing were an important facilitator to effective implementation. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of a complex set of opioid reduction interventions in surgery requires locally adaptable elements of the intervention, a team-centric approach, and an understanding of patient and clinician views regarding changes being proposed.

Surgeons' knowledge regarding perioperative pain management in patients with opioid use disorder: a survey among 260 members of the American College of Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) are increasing, challenging surgeons to adjust post-operative pain management guidelines. A literature review identified limited information on how to best care for these patients. The purpose of this study was to determine surgical perioperative management of OUD, challenges, and support needed for optimal care. METHODS: This study utilized an anonymous voluntary survey that was distributed to members of the American College of Surgeons through the association's electronic weekly newsletter. The survey was advertised weekly for three consecutive weeks. The survey included questions regarding surgeons' management of perioperative pain in patients with opioid use disorder and perceived barriers in treatment. RESULTS: A total of 260 surgeons responded representing all specialties except ophthalmology. General surgery (66.5%) and plastic and reconstructive surgery (7.5%) represented the majority of responders. Ninety-five percent of surgeons reported treating a patient who used opioids in the past month and 86% encountered a patient with OUD. Nearly half (46%) reported being uncomfortable managing postoperative pain in patients with OUD. Most (67%) were not aware of any guidelines or standards pertaining to perioperative management of patients with OUD. While consultation was sought by 86% of surgeons, analyses identified lack of timely response and a lack of care coordination among specialists. Lack of knowledge and fear of harm (contributing further to addiction) were the most common themes. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of surgeons report discomfort caring for patients with OUD with the vast majority involving a consulting service to assist with their care. Most surgeons believe that it would be helpful to have guidelines regarding the care of these patients. This provides an opportunity for increased education and training on the perioperative management of patients with OUD and further collaboration with addiction medicine, psychiatry and pain management colleagues.

The development of a safe opioid use agreement for surgical care using a modified Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Opioids prescribed to treat postsurgical pain have contributed to the ongoing opioid epidemic. While opioid prescribing practices have improved, most patients do not use all their pills and do not safely dispose of leftovers, which creates a risk for unsafe use and diversion. We aimed to generate consensus on the content of a "safe opioid use agreement" for the perioperative settings to improve patients' safe use, storage, and disposal of opioids. METHODS: We conducted a modified three-round Delphi study with clinicians across surgical specialties, quality improvement (QI) experts, and patients. In Round 1, participants completed a survey rating the importance and comprehensibility of 10 items on a 5-point Likert scale and provided comments. In Round 2, a sub-sample of participants attended a focus group to discuss items with the lowest agreement. In Round 3, the survey was repeated with the updated items. Quantitative values from the Likert scale and qualitative responses were summarized. RESULTS: Thirty-six experts (26 clinicians, seven patients/patient advocates, and three QI experts) participated in the study. In Round 1, >75% of respondents rated at least four out of five on the importance of nine items and on the comprehensibility of six items. In Round 2, participants provided feedback on the comprehensibility, formatting, importance, and purpose of the agreement, including a desire for more specificity and patient education. In Round 3, >75% of respondents rated at least four out of five for comprehensibility and importance of all 10 updated item. The final agreement included seven items on safe use, two items on safe storage, and one item on safe disposal. CONCLUSION: The expert panel reached consensus on the importance and comprehensibility of the content for an opioid use agreement and identified additional patient education needs. The agreement should be used as a tool to supplement rather than replace existing, tailored education.

Measuring Quality at the Surgeon Level.

Patients expect high-quality surgical care and increasingly are looking for ways to assess the quality of the surgeon they are seeing, but quality measurement is often more complicated than one might expect. Measurement of individual surgeon quality in a manner that allows for comparison among surgeons is particularly difficult. While the concept of measuring individual surgeon quality has a long history, technology now allows for new and innovative ways to measure and achieve surgical excellence. However, some recent efforts to make surgeon-level quality data publicly available have highlighted the challenges of this work. Through this chapter, the reader will be introduced to a brief history of surgical quality measurement, learn about the current state of quality measurement, and get a glimpse into what the future holds.

Development of the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC): Implementing 21 Components to Catalyze Statewide Improvement in Surgical Care.

INTRODUCTION: In 2014, 56 Illinois hospitals came together to form a unique learning collaborative, the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC). Our objectives are to provide an overview of the first three years of ISQIC focused on (1) how the collaborative was formed and funded, (2) the 21 strategies implemented to support quality improvement (QI), (3) collaborative sustainment, and (4) how the collaborative acts as a platform for innovative QI research. METHODS: ISQIC includes 21 components to facilitate QI that target the hospital, the surgical QI team, and the peri-operative microsystem. The components were developed from available evidence, a detailed needs assessment of the hospitals, reviewing experiences from prior surgical and non-surgical QI Collaboratives, and interviews with QI experts. The components comprise 5 domains: guided implementation (e.g., mentors, coaches, statewide QI projects), education (e.g., process improvement (PI) curriculum), hospital- and surgeon-level comparative performance reports (e.g., process, outcomes, costs), networking (e.g., forums to share QI experiences and best practices), and funding (e.g., for the overall program, pilot grants, and bonus payments for improvement). RESULTS: Through implementation of the 21 novel ISQIC components, hospitals were equipped to use their data to successfully implement QI initiatives and improve care. Formal (QI/PI) training, mentoring, and coaching were undertaken by the hospitals as they worked to implement solutions. Hospitals received funding for the program and were able to work together on statewide quality initiatives. Lessons learned at one hospital were shared with all participating hospitals through conferences, webinars, and toolkits to facilitate learning from each other with a common goal of making care better and safer for the surgical patient in Illinois. Over the first three years, surgical outcomes improved in Illinois. DISCUSSION: The first three years of ISQIC improved care for surgical patients across Illinois and allowed hospitals to see the value of participating in a surgical QI learning collaborative without having to make the initial financial investment themselves. Given the strong support and buy-in from the hospitals, ISQIC has continued beyond the initial three years and continues to support QI across Illinois hospitals.

Association between Surgical Technical Skills and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the association between intraoperative surgical skill and clinical outcomes. Methods: Peer-reviewed, original research articles published through August 31, 2021 were identified from PubMed and Embase. From the 1,513 potential articles, seven met eligibility requirements, reporting on 151 surgeons and 17,932 procedures. All included retrospective assessment of operative videos. Associations between surgical skill and outcomes were assessed by pooling odds ratios (OR) using random-effects models with the inverse variance method. Eligible studies included pancreaticoduodenectomy, gastric bypass, laparoscopic gastrectomy, prostatectomy, colorectal, and hemicolectomy procedures. Results: Meta-analytic pooling identified significant associations between the highest vs. lowest quartile of surgical skill and reoperation (OR: 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23, 0.83), hemorrhage (OR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.65, 0.68), obstruction (OR: 0.33; 95% CI, 0.30, 0.35), and any medical complication (OR: 0.23, 95% CI, 0.19, 0.27). Nonsignificant inverse associations were noted between skill and readmission, emergency department visit, mortality, leak, infection, venous thromboembolism, and cardiac and pulmonary complications. Conclusions: Overall, surgeon technical skill appears to predict clinical outcomes. However, there are surprisingly few articles that evaluate this association. The authors recommend a thoughtful approach for the development of a comprehensive surgical quality infrastructure that could significantly reduce the challenges identified by this study.

An Evaluation of Peer-Rated Surgical Skill and its Relationship With Detrusor Muscle Sampling in Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of peer-review of TURBT videos as a means to evaluate surgeon skill and its relationship to detrusor sampling. METHODS: Urologists from an academic health system submitted TURBT videos in 2019. Ten blinded peers evaluated each surgeon's performance using a 10-item scoring instrument to quantify surgeon skill. Normalized composite skill scores for each surgeon were calculated using peer ratings. For surgeons submitting videos, we retrospectively reviewed all TURBT pathology results (2018-2019) to assess surgeon-specific detrusor sampling. A hierarchical logistic regression model was fit to evaluate the association between skill and detrusor sampling, adjusting for patient and surgeon factors. RESULTS: Surgeon skill scores and detrusor sampling rates were determined for 13 surgeons performing 245 TURBTs. Skill scores varied from -6.0 to 5.1 [mean: 0; standard deviation (SD): 2.40]. Muscle was sampled in 72% of cases, varying considerably across surgeons (mean: 64.5%; SD: 30.7%). Among 8 surgeons performing >5 TURBTs during the study period, adjusted detrusor sampling rate was associated with sending separate deep specimens (odds ratio [OR]: 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-3.81, P = .045) but not skill (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.57-1.17, P = .191). CONCLUSION: Surgeon skill was not associated with detrusor sampling, suggesting there may be other drivers of variability of detrusor sampling in TURBT.

Intraoperative Assessment of Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) and Qualitative Description of their Effects on Intraoperative Performance.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate the feasibility of using the Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) rating tool in assessing surgeons' non-technical skills behaviors in live operations, and (2) to describe the effect of NOTSS on intraoperative performance. SETTING DESIGN: This study was conducted in an academic hospital in North America. Two observers independently conducted direct non-participant observations using the NOTSS rating tool to assess non-technical skills, and to document examples of effective or ineffective non-technical skills behaviors. Observers took field notes to document non-technical skill gaps that were not captured by the NOTSS rating tool, and situations or scenarios that presented challenges for accurate assessment. Interclass correlation estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to assess the validity of the NOTSS rating tool. Deductive thematic qualitative data analysis was used for field notes and NOTSS behavior descriptions. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were general surgeons performing either minimally invasive (robotic assisted or laparoscopic surgery), or open procedures. RESULTS: We observed 18 surgeries, involving 6 surgeons, 11 residents and one fellow resulting in 37 hours of direct observations. The mean NOTSS score was 3.8 (SD 0.41) for situation awareness, 3.75 (SD 0.47) for decision-making, 3.71 (SD 0.39) for communication and teamwork, and 3.76 (SD 0.38) for leadership. The inter-rater reliability ranged between 0.65 and 0.80 for each NOTSS categories. The observers documented examples of effective non-technical skills behaviors and examples of behaviors that need improvement. Furthermore, we described the effect of each observed behavior on intraoperative performance. One challenge to NOTSS use in live surgery was that observers had to infer situation awareness, decision-making, and coping with pressure as these were not easily observed without attending surgeons articulating their underlying thought process. CONCLUSION: The use of the NOTSS tool in live surgery is a valid and practical tool to document observed behaviors and their effect on intraoperative performance in order to provide constructive feedback to surgeons. One notable limitation is that without specific articulation by the surgeon of their underlying thought process the observer must infer specific elements. By documenting specific real-world events with high inter-rater reliability and adequate surgeon score variation the process can be used to provide useful feedback for improvement.

An estrogen-sensitive fibroblast population drives abdominal muscle fibrosis in an inguinal hernia mouse model.

Greater than 25% of all men develop an inguinal hernia in their lifetime, and more than 20 million inguinal hernia repair surgeries are performed worldwide each year. The mechanisms causing abdominal muscle weakness, the formation of inguinal hernias, or their recurrence are largely unknown. We previously reported that excessively produced estrogen in the lower abdominal muscles (LAMs) triggers extensive LAM fibrosis, leading to hernia formation in a transgenic male mouse model expressing the human aromatase gene (Aromhum). To understand the cellular basis of estrogen-driven muscle fibrosis, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing on LAM tissue from Aromhum and wild-type littermates. We found a fibroblast-like cell group composed of 6 clusters, 2 of which were validated for their enrichment in Aromhum LAM tissue. One of the potentially novel hernia-associated fibroblast clusters in Aromhum was enriched for the estrogen receptor-α gene (Esr1hi). Esr1hi fibroblasts maximally expressed estrogen target genes and seemed to serve as the progenitors of another cluster expressing ECM-altering enzymes (Mmp3hi) and to upregulate expression of proinflammatory, profibrotic genes. The discovery of these 2 potentially novel and unique hernia-associated fibroblasts may lead to the development of novel treatments that can nonsurgically prevent or reverse inguinal hernias.

Opioid-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations among patients with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders dually enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare Part D.

PURPOSE: We examined the prevalence of, and factors associated with, serious opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) that led to an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalization among patients with chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and disorders dually enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare Part D. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used linked national patient-level data (April 1, 2011, to October 31, 2014) from the VA and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to identify serious ORADEs among dually enrolled veterans with a chronic GI symptom or disorder. Outcome measures included serious ORADEs, defined as an ED visit attributed to an ORADE or a hospitalization where the principal or secondary reason for admission involved an opioid. We used multiple logistic regression models to determine factors independently associated with a serious ORADE. RESULTS: We identified 3,430 veterans who had a chronic GI symptom or disorder; were dually enrolled in the VA and Medicare Part D; and had a serious ORADE that led to an ED visit, hospitalization, or both. The period prevalence of having a serious ORADE was 2.4% overall and 4.4% among veterans with chronic opioid use (≥90 consecutive days). Veterans with serious ORADEs were more likely to be less than 40 years old, male, white, and to have chronic abdominal pain, functional GI disorders, chronic pancreatitis, or Crohn's disease. They were also more likely to have used opioids chronically and at higher daily doses. CONCLUSION: There may be a considerable burden of serious ORADEs among patients with chronic GI symptoms and disorders. Future quality improvement efforts should target this vulnerable population.

A Missing Piece of the Puzzle: Patient and Provider Perspectives on Pain Management Needs and Opioid Prescribing in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care.

Background: Recent data have shown high rates of opioid misuse among inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. We conducted a qualitative study to explore IBD patient and provider perceptions and experiences with pain management and opioid prescribing. Methods: We conducted a focus group with IBD patients and semistructured interviews with IBD-focused physicians and nurses. We used an inductive approach for analysis and the constant comparison method to develop and refine codes and identify prominent themes. We analyzed interview and focus group data concurrently to triangulate themes. Results: Nine patients and 10 providers participated. We grouped themes into 3 categories: (1) current practices to manage pain; (2) perceived pain management challenges; and (3) suggestions to optimize pain management. In the first category (current practices), both patients and providers reported building long-term patient-provider relationships and the importance of exploring nonpharmacologic pain management strategies. Patients reported proactively trying remedies infrequently recommended by IBD providers. In the second category (pain management challenges), patients and providers reported concerns about opioid use and having limited options to treat pain safely. Patients discussed chronic pain and having few solutions to manage it. In the third category, providers shared suggestions for improvement such as increasing use of nonpharmacologic pain management strategies and enhancing care coordination. Conclusions: Despite some common themes between the 2 groups, we identified some pain management needs (eg, addressing chronic pain) that matter to patients but were seldom discussed by IBD providers. Addressing these areas of potential disconnect is essential to optimize pain management safety in IBD care.

Primary prevention of prescription opioid diversion: a systematic review of medication disposal interventions.

Background: In the U.S., 50-75% of nonmedical users of prescription opioids obtain their pills through diversion by friends or relatives. Increasing disposal of unused opioid prescriptions is a fundamental primary prevention strategy in combatting the opioid epidemic.Objectives: To identify interventions for disposal of unused opioid pills and assess the evidence of their effectiveness on disposal-related outcomes.Methods: A search of four electronic databases was conducted (October 2019). We included all empirical studies, systematic literature reviews, and meta-analyses about study medication disposal interventions in the U.S. Studies of disposal interventions that did not include opioids were excluded. We abstracted data for the selected articles to describe the study design, and outcomes. Further, we assessed the quality of each study using the NIH Study Quality Assessment Tools.Results: We identified 25 articles that met our inclusion criteria. None of the 13 studies on drug take-back events or the two studies on donation boxes could draw conclusions about their effectiveness. Although studies on educational interventions found positive effects on knowledge acquisition, they did not find differences in disposal rates. Two randomized controlled trials on drug disposal bags found higher opioid disposal rates in their intervention arms compared to the control arms (57.1% vs 28.6% and 33.3%, p = .01; and 85.7% vs 64.9%, p = .03).Conclusions: Peer-reviewed publications on opioid disposal interventions are limited and either do not address effectiveness or have conflicting findings. Future research should address these limitations and further evaluate implementation and cost-effectiveness.

Characteristics of Opioid Prescriptions to Veterans With Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Disorders Dually Enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Medicare Part D.

INTRODUCTION: Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and disorders affect an increasingly large group of veterans. Opioid use may be rising in this population, but this is concerning from a patient safety perspective, given the risk of dependence and lack of evidence supporting opioid use to manage chronic pain. We examined the characteristics of opioid prescriptions and factors associated with chronic opioid use among chronic GI patients dually enrolled in the DVA and Medicare Part D. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used linked, national patient-level data (from April 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014) from the VA and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to identify chronic GI patients and observe opioid use. Veterans who had a chronic GI symptom or disorder were dually enrolled in VA and Part D and received ≥1 opioid prescription dispensed through the VA, Part D, or both. Chronic GI symptoms and disorders included chronic abdominal pain, chronic pancreatitis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and functional GI disorders. Key outcome measures were outpatient opioid prescription dispensing overall and chronic opioid use, defined as ≥90 consecutive days of opioid receipt over 12 months. We described patient characteristics and opioid use measures using descriptive statistics. Using multiple logistic regression modeling, we generated adjusted odds ratios and 95% CIs to determine variables independently associated with chronic opioid use. The final model included variables outlined in the literature and our conceptual framework. RESULTS: We identified 141,805 veterans who had a chronic GI symptom or disorder, were dually enrolled in VA and Part D, and received ≥1 opioid prescription dispensed from the VA, Part D, or both. Twenty-six percent received opioids from the VA only, 69% received opioids from Medicare Part D only, and 5% were "dual users," receiving opioids through both VA and Part D. Compared to veterans who received opioids from the VA or Part D only, dual users had a greater likelihood of potentially unsafe opioid use outcomes, including greater number of days on opioids, higher daily doses, and higher odds of chronic use. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic GI patients in the VA may be frequent users of opioids and may have a unique set of risk factors for unsafe opioid use. Careful monitoring of opioid use among chronic GI patients may help to begin risk stratifying this group. and develop tailored approaches to minimize chronic use. The findings underscore potential nuances within the opioid epidemic and suggest that components of the VA's Opioid Safety Initiative may need to be adapted around veterans at a higher risk of opioid-related adverse events.

High-Dose Opioid Use Among Veterans with Unexplained Gastrointestinal Symptoms Versus Structural Gastrointestinal Diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: In a cohort of Veterans dually enrolled in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare Part D, we sought to describe high-dose daily opioid use among Veterans with unexplained gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and structural GI diagnoses and examine factors associated with high-dose use. METHODS: We used linked national patient-level data from the VA and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We grouped patients into 3 subsets: those with unexplained GI symptoms (e.g., chronic abdominal pain); structural GI diagnoses (e.g., chronic pancreatitis); and those with a concurrent unexplained GI symptom and structural GI diagnosis. High-dose daily opioid use levels were examined as a binary variable [≥ 100 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day] and as an ordinal variable (50-99 MME/day, 100-119 MME/day, or ≥ 120 MME/day). RESULTS: We identified 141,805 chronic GI patients dually enrolled in VA and Part D. High-dose opioid use was present in 11% of Veterans with unexplained GI symptoms, 10% of Veterans with structural GI diagnoses, and 15% of Veterans in the concurrent GI group. Compared to Veterans with only an unexplained GI symptom or structural diagnosis, concurrent GI patients were more likely to have higher daily opioid doses, more opioid days ≥ 100 MME, and higher risk of chronic use. Factors associated with high-dose use included opioid receipt from both VA and Part D, younger age, and benzodiazepine use. CONCLUSIONS: A significant subset of chronic GI patients in the VA are high-dose opioid users. Efforts are needed to reduce high-dose use among Veterans with concurrent GI symptoms and diagnoses.

A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Clinician Education Modules on Reducing Surgical Opioid Prescribing.

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.