Reducing opioid prescribing on discharge after orthopedic surgery: Does a guideline improve opioid prescribing practice?

AIM: To investigate adherence to discharge advice in a prescription opioid prescribing guideline (GL) post-orthopedic surgery. METHODS: The guideline in draft form was introduced in February 2018. To assess longer-term adherence to discharge advice and to understand which components of that advice were adhered to, regular audits of discharge prescribing were performed after formal GL launch in February 2019, a year after the draft of the GL had been available. The post-GL audit was conducted for three months (March to May 2019) and results reviewed. When these audit results showed a need for improvement in prescribing practice, a 1-month education "booster" named prescription opioid practice improvement safe opioid supply (POPI SOS) took place. Audits for a further 3 months (July to Sept 2019) were then carried out to ascertain whether the additional effort improved adherence to the guideline. RESULTS: On average, adherence to all elements of the guideline was low at only 23.1 percent at 12 months post-draft GL and 1 month after its formal launch. After POPI SOS, a statistically significant improvement was achieved with an average increase in adherence to 52.5 percent (ρ < 0.001). Greatest improvement was seen in the percentage of patients discharged with an opioid plan included in the discharge summary, increasing from 35.8 to 77.7 percent (ρ < 0.001). The second significant improvement observed was in the supply of opioids being limited to four days or less, an increase from 38.1 to 61.9 percent (ρ < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Introduction of the guideline was not sufficient to promote sustained change in practice. Ongoing monitoring and education were required for its implementation. These findings highlight that comprehensive, locally adapted, evidence-based opioid stewardship is needed to increase the safety of patients and the community in relation to opioid therapy.

Reducing opioid prescribing on discharge after orthopaedic surgery: does a guideline and education improve prescribing practice 1 year later?

BACKGROUND: An intervention Prescription Opioid Practice Improvement (POPI), addressing opioid prescribing on discharge following orthopaedic surgery, demonstrated improved practice. Here we report the sustainability of improved practice at 12 months, and the impact of a booster education intervention, POPI SOS (Safe Opioid Supply). METHODS: Audits were performed using methodology described in previously published studies. RESULTS: High proportion of patients were discharged on opioids, 89.9% 12 months post-POPI (n = 149) and 82.2% post-POPI SOS (n = 169). Twelve months post-POPI there was a significant reduction in combination immediate (IR) and slow release (SR) opioids, 45.7% at the end of POPI program to 34.3% at 12 months (χ2 (1, N = 364) = 4.47, ρ = 0.034); a significant decrease in opioid-weaning plans, 87.4% at the end of POPI program to 35.8% at 12 months (χ2 (1, N = 365) = 104.19, ρ = <0.001); and a significant increase in provision of full quantities of SR-opioids, 6.1% after the POPI program to 15.7% (χ2 (1, N = 364) = 8.95, ρ = 0.003). The POPI SOS booster program significantly improved measures including reduction in combination IR and SR, 34.3-22.3% (χ2 (1, N = 273) = 4.87, ρ = 0.028) and an increase in opioid plans in discharge summaries, from 35.8% to 77.7% (χ2 (1, N = 273) = 48.87, ρ < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Better practice in relation to opioid prescribing is achievable but, for sustained improvement, opioid stewardship activities are needed to reduce the potential harms associated with prescription opioids.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of opioid use at 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively by opioid naïve orthopaedic surgery patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is evidence that opioid initiation post-surgery is contributing to the problem of chronic misuse and/or abuse of over the counter medications in the community, and that orthopedic patients may be particularly at risk. The aim of the systematic review with meta-analysis was to identify research that examined opioid use at 3, 6, and 12 months post-operatively by previously opioid naïve orthopedic surgery patients. Design, databases, and data treatment: A searched review with meta-analysis was undertaken. Eight databases were search. Meta-analyses conducted at all three time points (3 months, 6 months, and 12 months). RESULTS: The search yielded 779 records, and after screening, 13 papers were included in meta-analysis. Results provide strong evidence that post-operative opioid use amongst the opioid naïve is a real effect (7 percent at 3 months, 4 percent at 6 months, and 2 percent at 12 months). A Z-test for overall effect revealed strong evidence that this proportion was nonzero for opioid use at 3, 6, and 12 months (p < 0.001 for all time points). A small but significant proportion of opioid naïve patients who are prescribed opioids remain on these medications up to 12 months post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: The nature of the studies included in the meta-analysis were varied, hence subanalyses regarding surgery type, characteristics of the patient group or other potential factors that might influence the progression to longer term opioid use after these surgeries could not be explored. Given this, further research in this area should explore such specific orthopedic subgroups.

Evaluation of communication to general practitioners when opioid-naïve post-surgical patients are discharged from hospital on opioids.

BACKGROUND: To address the opioid crisis, much work has focused on minimizing opioid supply to surgical patients upon hospital discharge. Research is limited regarding handover to primary care providers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the communication of post-operative opioid prescribing information provided by hospitals to general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: This study comprised two components. First, a retrospective audit of discharge summaries for opioid-naïve surgical patients supplied with an opioid on discharge was conducted to evaluate accuracy of opioid documentation and presence of an opioid management plan. Second, a survey was distributed to GPs to seek their opinions regarding adequacy of communication about hospital-initiated opioids in discharge summaries, challenges experienced in opioid management and suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: Discharge summaries for 285 patients were audited. Twenty-seven (9.5%) patients had no discharge summary completed. Of the remaining 258, 63 (24.4%) summaries had at least one discrepancy between the opioid(s) listed and the opioid(s) dispensed. Only 33 (12.8%) summaries contained an opioid management plan. From 57 GP-completed surveys, 41 (71.9%) GPs rarely or never received an opioid management plan from hospital surgical units and 34 (59.7%) were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with information provided about opioid supply and management. Qualitative responses highlighted difficulties GPs experience managing opioid treatment for post-surgical patients after discharge, differing patient expectations and the need to improve communication at times of transition. CONCLUSION: When opioid-naive patients are discharged from hospital on opioids, communication from hospitals to GPs is poor. Future interventions should focus on strategies to improve this.

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 improvement in orthopaedic specialty unit in a tertiary hospital: a retrospective audit of hospital discharge data pre- and post-intervention for better opioid prescribing practice.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the effects of an intervention focusing on better opioid prescription practice in a tertiary metropolitan hospital orthopaedic unit. METHODS: Following a previous audit of opioid prescribing in the orthopaedics unit, an intervention comprising the (i) Expert Advisory Group oversight of opioid prescribing, (ii) development of a prescription opioid guideline for various hospital contexts and (iii) a series of education sessions was undertaken to improve opioid prescription practice. A re-audit was subsequently carried out to determine whether the intervention had had an impact on the previously audited orthopaedic unit. RESULTS: Each audit period was 6 months. There were 281 orthopaedic patients in the original audit (1 January 2017-30 June 2017) and 289 in the re-audit (1 March 2018-31 August 2018). In both audits, a high proportion of patients were discharged to the community on opioids, 82.2% (n = 231) pre-intervention and 79.6% (n = 230) post-intervention. Statistically significant differences in opioid prescribing were found between audits, including: a reduction in the number of patients discharged on combination opioids from 71.4% to 45.7% (P < 0.001), a reduction in the provision of full pharmaceutical quantities of opioid on discharge from 29.4% to 6.1% (P < 0.001) and an increase in opioid weaning plans included in discharge summaries from 6.9% to 87.4% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Raised awareness across the organization and education for staff more than halved the post-operative opioid prescription levels. This highlights the capacity for change in hospitals and the ability to work towards safer prescribing of post-operative opioid therapy.

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.