Trends in emergency physician opioid prescribing practices during the United States opioid crisis.

BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid related deaths have increased dramatically over the past 17 years. Although emergency physicians (EPs) have not been the primary force behind this rise, previous literature have suggested that EPs could improve their opioid prescribing practices. We designed this study to evaluate the trend in emergency department (ED) opioid prescriptions over time during the US opioid epidemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2018, evaluating all adult patients who presented to two study EDs for a pain-related complaint and received an analgesic prescription upon ED discharge. We compared these data to trends in lay media and medical literature regarding the opioid epidemic. We also evaluated the incidence of repeat ED visits based on the type of analgesic prescriptions provided. RESULTS: Opioid prescriptions decreased from 37.76% to 13.29% over the six year study period. This coupled with an increase in non-opioid medications from 6.12% to 11.33% and an increase in "no prescription" from 56.12% to 75.37%. This corresponded with an increase in the number of publications on the opioid epidemic within the lay-public and medical literature. Additionally, those patients that received no opiates were less likely to require a repeat ED visit. CONCLUSIONS: ED physicians are prescribing less opiates, while increasing the amount of non-narcotic analgesic prescriptions. This may be in response to the literature suggesting that prescription opioids play a large role in the opioids crisis. This decrease in opioid prescriptions did not increase the need for repeat ED visits.

Cost analysis of removing pediatric ureteral stents with and without a retrieval string.

BACKGROUND: Indwelling ureteral stents are commonly placed in urologic surgeries where optimal urinary drainage is necessary. In the pediatric population, removing a stent without retrieval string (SWOS) requires a secondary operation and additional anesthetic exposure. Although these burdens can be mitigated through the placement of a stent with retrieval string (SWS), fears of complications may prevent widespread adoption of this practice by pediatric urologists. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to assess the differential cost of removing SWS and SWOS. It was hypothesized that costs associated with removing SWS are significantly lower than those associated with removing SWOS, without increasing complications. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was performed on pediatric patients undergoing common urologic surgeries with concurrent stent placement at a single tertiary referral center. Charges and healthcare costs surrounding the removal of ureteral stents were evaluated using the institution-specific ratio of cost to charges, by estimating lost wages, and by exploring differences in poststent healthcare-related events that incur additional cost. RESULTS: A total of 109 patients with a median age of 5 years (range: 6 months-20 years) were reviewed. A total of 29 patients had SWS, and 80 had SWOS. The theoretical cost of SWS removal in clinic was $400.48 compared with $2290.86 ± $119.30 for operative removal of SWOS, with mean difference of $1890.38 (P < 0.01). The mean stent duration of SWOS was 34.0 ± 13.2 days vs. 10.1 ± 4.9 days for SWS (P < 0.01). Subgroup analysis of the ureteral reconstruction group showed no difference in any complications (35% vs 27%, respectively), early dislodgment (7% vs 7%, respectively) or costly healthcare utilization (23% vs 20%, respectively) among patients with SWOS compared with those with SWS. In SWS group with early dislodgment, neither required a secondary procedure. DISCUSSION: With rising healthcare expenditures, physicians must be able to provide cost-effective treatment while not compromising safety or outcomes. Unlike prior analyses of cost related to the type of the stent used, the present study specifically reviewed costs of removing SWS versus SWOS and evaluated rates of costly complications. The study findings provide a preliminary basis for advocating the more economical use of SWS when indicated. Lack of power and heterogeneity of the groups need to be addressed in future analyses with larger, matched cohorts. CONCLUSION: Removal of SWS is more cost-effective than that of SWOS while maintaining similar safety outcomes and should be considered in certain pediatric urology cases to decrease healthcare cost. SWS should be preferred for uncomplicated ureteroscopy, but benefits are less certain in ureteral reconstruction; further studies are needed.