Predictors of higher-risk chronic opioid prescriptions in an academic primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic noncancer pain treated with higher doses of opioids or concurrent substance use are at increased risk of adverse events. Although several national guidelines recommend maximum dosing thresholds and urine drug testing, adherence to these guidelines is inconsistent. METHODS: To identify predictors of higher-risk opioid prescriptions in 2 academic primary care clinics, the authors developed a retrospective cohort of 842 patients who were prescribed ≥5 opioid prescriptions for noncancer pain between March 2012 and March 2013. The authors evaluated odds of higher-dose opioid prescriptions and urine drug testing using multivariate logistic models. RESULTS: Among study subjects, 47% received prescriptions for the equivalent of ≥50 mg morphine per day. After adjustment for confounders, patients with a resident primary care provider were less likely to receive higher-dose prescriptions compared with faculty providers (odds ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.94), whereas patients with a nonlocal home address were more likely to be prescribed higher doses (odds ratio = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5-2.9). Hispanic, Asian, and older patients were also less likely to be prescribed higher doses. Urine drug testing was not regularly completed (35% over 2 years), but odds of testing were higher for patients who self-identified as black, had resident primary care providers, lived locally, or were prescribed higher opioid doses. CONCLUSIONS: In this academic clinical setting, patients with a resident primary care provider are less likely to receive higher-risk opioid prescriptions, as are Hispanic, Asian, and older patients. Black patients complete urine drug tests more frequently independent of other patient and provider characteristics. Additional studies are needed to assess why patients who travel larger distances to their primary care clinic are prescribed higher doses of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

The resident experience with psychological safety during interprofessional critical event debriefings.

Objectives: Interprofessional feedback and teamwork skills training are important in graduate medical education. Critical event debriefing is a unique interprofessional team training opportunity in the emergency department. While potentially educational, these varied, high-stakes events can threaten psychological safety for learners. This is a qualitative study of emergency medicine resident physicians' experience of interprofessional feedback during critical event debriefing to characterize factors that impact their psychological safety. Methods: The authors conduced semistructured interviews with resident physicians who were the physician team leader during a critical event debriefing. Interviews were coded and themes were generated using a general inductive approach and concepts from social ecological theory. Results: Eight residents were interviewed. The findings suggest that cultivating a safe learning environment for residents during debriefings involves the following: (1) allowing space for validating statements, (2) supporting strong interprofessional relationships, (3) providing structured opportunities for interprofessional learning, (4) encouraging attendings to model vulnerability, (5) standardizing the process of debriefing, (6) rejecting unprofessional behavior, and (7) creating the time and space for the process in the workplace. Conclusions: Given the numerous intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutional factors at play, educators should be sensitive to times when a resident cannot engage due to unaddressed threats to their psychological safety. Educators can address these threats in real time and over the course of a resident's training to enhance psychological safety and the potential educational impact of critical event debriefing.