Opioid prescribing in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital: A retrospective audit of hospital discharge data.

OBJECTIVE: EDs are a common source of prescription opioids on discharge. We explored opioid prescribing practices in an ED at a tertiary hospital in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: A retrospective audit over a 6 month period of patients discharged from the ED to the community with the maximum allowable quantities of prescription opioids. RESULTS: There was a total of 3301 patient-episodes discharged with a prescription from the ED. Of these, 766 (23.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 21.8-24.6) were prescribed opioids, with over half discharged with the maximum allowable quantities of prescription opioids. Immediate-release opioids were prescribed in 362 (85.8%, 95% CI 82.5-89.1) patient-episodes, a combination of immediate-release and slow-release preparations were prescribed in 29 (6.9%, 95% CI 4.5-9.3) and 31 (7.3%, 95% CI 4.8-9.8) were prescribed as slow-release opioids alone. Co-prescription of other analgesia with opioids occurred in 152 (36.0%, 95% CI 31.4-40.6) patient-episodes. Possible drug interactions between opioids and other medications were noted in 117 (27.7%, 95% CI 23.4-32.0) patient-episodes. Discharge summaries were prepared for 360 (85.3%, 95% CI 81.9-88.7) patient-episodes, but only 171 (40.5%, 95% CI 35.8-45.2) included a plan to address the opioids, be that an opioid-weaning regimen, analgesia review or referral to a pain specialist on discharge. CONCLUSION: Opioid prescribing was common in this ED, with almost one-quarter of discharge prescriptions being for a prescription opioid. This audit highlights potential areas for practice improvement including review of the quantity of opioid tablets prescribed as well as an opioid plan on discharge from the ED.

Opioid prescribing in orthopaedic and neurosurgical specialties in a tertiary hospital: a retrospective audit of hospital discharge data.

BACKGROUND: To understand patterns of opioid prescribing on discharge in the orthopaedic and neurosurgical wards of a tertiary metropolitan hospital. METHODS: A retrospective audit of medical records and discharge summaries for all orthopaedic and neurosurgical patients admitted for at least 2 days on two surgical wards over a 6-month period between 1 January and 30 June 2017. RESULTS: A combined total of 355 patients (281 orthopaedic and 74 neurosurgical patients) were included in the audit. Approximately 82% were discharged on opioids. Of patients discharged on opioids, 71.4% of the orthopaedic group and 73.8% of the neurosurgical group were discharged on combinations of two or more opioids (immediate release together with slow release). Around 65% of the sample discharged on opioids was opioid naïve on admission. About 32.5% of the orthopaedic patients and 68.9% of the neurosurgical patients were discharged on a combination of opioid and other pharmacotherapy that could potentiate the central nervous system depressant effect of the opioids. Only 6.9% of orthopaedic patients and 11.5% of the neurosurgical patients had discharge summaries that included any reference to opioid management after discharge. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic and neurosurgical units had high opioid prescribing rates on discharge from hospital. This highlights the need for clear communication of the intended medication management plan post-discharge in order to minimize inappropriate and ongoing use of opioids post-surgery.

Developing Australia's first statewide trauma registry: what are the lessons?

Trauma registries, like disease registries, provide an important analysis tool to assess the management of patient care. Trauma registries are well established and relatively common in the USA and have been used to change legislation, promote trauma prevention and to evaluate trauma system effectiveness. In Australia, the first truly statewide trauma registry was established in Victoria in 2001 with an estimated capture of 1700 major trauma cases annually. The Victorian State Trauma Registry, managed by the Victorian State Trauma Outcomes Registry and Monitoring (VSTORM) group, was established in response to a ministerial review of trauma and emergency services undertaken in 1997 to advise the Victorian Government on a best practice model of trauma service provision that was responsive to the particular needs of critically ill trauma patients. This taskforce recommended the establishment of a new system of care for major trauma patients in Victoria and a statewide trauma registry to monitor this new system. The development of the Victorian state trauma registry has shown that there are certain issues that must be resolved for successful implementation of any system-wide registry. This paper describes the issues faced by VSTORM in developing, implementing and maintaining a statewide trauma registry.