Drivers of Variation in Opioid Prescribing after Common Surgical Procedures in a Large Multihospital Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Misuse of prescription opioids is a well-established contributor to the United States opioid epidemic. The primary objective of this study was to identify which level of care delivery (i.e. patient, prescriber, or hospital) produced the most unwarranted variation in opioid prescribing after common surgical procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Electronic health record (EHR) data from a large multihospital healthcare system was used in conjunction with random-effect models to examine variation in opioid prescribing practices following similar inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures between October 2019 and September 2021. Unwarranted variation was conceptualized as variation resulting from prescriber behavior unsupported by evidence. Covariates identified as drivers of warranted variation included characteristics known to influence pain levels or patient safety. All other model variables, including prescriber specialty and patient race, ethnicity, and insurance status were characterized as potential drivers of unwarranted variation. RESULTS: Among 25,188 procedures with an opioid prescription at hospital discharge, 53.5% exceeded guideline recommendations, corresponding to 13,228 patients receiving the equivalent of >140,000 excess 5mg oxycodone tablets following surgical procedures. Prescribing variation was primarily driven by prescriber-level factors, with approximately half of the total variation in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed observed at the prescriber level and not explained by any measured variables. Unwarranted covariates associated with higher prescribed opioid quantity included non-Hispanic black race, Medicare insurance, smoking history, later hospital discharge times, and prescription by a surgeon rather than a hospitalist or primary care provider. CONCLUSION: Given the large proportion of unexplained variation observed at the provider level, targeting prescribers through education and training may be an effective strategy for reducing postoperative opioid prescribing.

Peer Comparison or Guideline-Based Feedback and Postsurgery Opioid Prescriptions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Excess opioid prescribing after surgery can result in prolonged use and diversion. Email feedback based on social norms may reduce the number of pills prescribed. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of 2 social norm-based interventions on reducing guideline-discordant opioid prescribing after surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at a large health care delivery system in northern California between October 2021 and October 2022 included general, obstetric/gynecologic, and orthopedic surgeons with patients aged 18 years or older discharged to home with an oral opioid prescription. Interventions: In 19 hospitals, 3 surgical specialties (general, orthopedic, and obstetric/gynecologic) were randomly assigned to a control group or 1 of 2 interventions. The guidelines intervention provided email feedback to surgeons on opioid prescribing relative to institutionally endorsed guidelines; the peer comparison intervention provided email feedback on opioid prescribing relative to that of peer surgeons. Emails were sent to surgeons with at least 2 guideline-discordant prescriptions in the previous month. The control group had no intervention. Main Outcome and Measures: The probability that a discharged patient was prescribed a quantity of opioids above the guideline for the respective procedure during the 12 intervention months. Results: There were 38 235 patients discharged from 640 surgeons during the 12-month intervention period. Control-group surgeons prescribed above guidelines 36.8% of the time during the intervention period compared with 27.5% and 25.4% among surgeons in the peer comparison and guidelines arms, respectively. In adjusted models, the peer comparison intervention reduced guideline-discordant prescribing by 5.8 percentage points (95% CI, -10.5 to -1.1; P = .03) and the guidelines intervention reduced it by 4.7 percentage points (95% CI, -9.4 to -0.1; P = .05). Effects were driven by surgeons who performed more surgeries and had more guideline-discordant prescribing at baseline. There was no significant difference between interventions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, email feedback based on either guidelines or peer comparison reduced opioid prescribing after surgery. Guideline-based feedback was as effective as peer comparison-based feedback. These interventions are simple, low-cost, and scalable, and may reduce downstream opioid misuse. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05070338.

Disparities in postoperative opioid prescribing by race and ethnicity: an electronic health records-based observational study from Northern California, 2015-2020.

OBJECTIVES: To examine racial and ethnic disparities in postoperative opioid prescribing. DATA SOURCES: Electronic health records (EHR) data across 24 hospitals from a healthcare delivery system in Northern California from January 1, 2015 to February 2, 2020 (study period). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, secondary data analyses were conducted to examine differences by race and ethnicity in opioid prescribing, measured as morphine milligram equivalents (MME), among patients who underwent select, but commonly performed, surgical procedures. Linear regression models included adjustment for factors that would likely influence prescribing decisions and race and ethnicity-specific propensity weights. Opioid prescribing, overall and by race and ethnicity, was also compared to postoperative opioid guidelines. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from the EHR on adult patients undergoing a procedure during the study period, discharged to home with an opioid prescription. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among 61,564 patients, on adjusted regression analysis, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients received prescriptions with higher mean MME than non-Hispanic white (NHW) patients (+ 6.4% [95% confidence interval: 4.4%, 8.3%]), whereas Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian patients received lower mean MME (-4.2% [-5.1%, -3.2%] and - 3.6% [-4.8%, -2.3%], respectively). Nevertheless, 72.8% of all patients received prescriptions above guidelines, ranging from 71.0 to 80.3% by race and ethnicity. Disparities in prescribing were eliminated among Hispanic and NHB patients versus NHW patients when prescriptions were written within guideline recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Racial and ethnic disparities in opioid prescribing exist in the postoperative setting, yet all groups received prescriptions above guideline recommendations. Policies encouraging guideline-based prescribing may reduce disparities and overall excess prescribing.

Evaluating the effectiveness of email-based nudges to reduce postoperative opioid prescribing: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical patients are commonly prescribed more opioids at discharge than needed to manage their postoperative pain. These excess opioids increase the risks of new persistent opioid use, opioid-induced ventilatory impairment and opioid diversion. This study tests the effectiveness of two behavioural nudges, one based on peer behaviour and one based on best practice guidelines, in reducing excessive postoperative opioid prescriptions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be conducted at 19 hospitals within a large healthcare delivery system in northern California, USA. Three surgical specialties (general surgery, orthopaedic surgery and obstetric/gynaecological surgery) at each hospital will be randomised either to a control group or to one of two active intervention arms. One intervention is grounded in the theory of injunctive norms, and provides feedback to surgeons on their postoperative opioid prescribing relative to prescribing guidelines endorsed by their institution. The other intervention draws from the theory of descriptive norms, and provides feedback similar to the first intervention but using peers' behaviour rather than guidelines as the benchmark for the surgeon's prescribing behaviour. The interventions will be delivered by a monthly email. Both interventions will be active for twelve months. The effects of each intervention relative to the control group and to each other will be tested using a four-level hierarchical model adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Using behavioural nudges rather than rigid policy changes allows us to target excessive prescribing without preventing clinicians from using their clinical judgement to address patient pain. All study activities have been approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee (ID 2018-0988). Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and social media accounts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05070338.