The protocol of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety Trial 1 (AESOPS-1): Electronic health record nudges

A Qualitative Description of Clinician Free-Text Rationales Entered within Accountable Justification Interventions

BACKGROUND

Requiring accountable justifications-visible, clinician-recorded explanations for not following a clinical decision support (CDS) alert-has been used to steer clinicians away from potentially guideline-discordant decisions. Understanding themes from justifications across clinical content areas may reveal how clinicians rationalize decisions and could help inform CDS alerts.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the free-text justifications entered by primary care physicians from three pilot interventions designed to reduce opioid prescribing and, in older adults, high-risk polypharmacy and overtesting. Clinicians encountered alerts when triggering conditions were met within the chart. Clinicians were asked to change their course of action or enter a justification for the action that would be displayed in the chart. We extracted all justifications and grouped justifications with common themes. Two authors independently coded each justification and resolved differences via discussion. Three physicians used a modified Delphi technique to rate the clinical appropriateness of the justifications.

RESULTS

There were 560 justifications from 50 unique clinicians. We grouped these into three main themes used to justify an action: (1) report of a particular diagnosis or symptom (e.g., for "anxiety" or "acute pain"); (2) provision of further contextual details about the clinical case (e.g., tried and failed alternatives, short-term supply, or chronic medication); and (3) noting communication between clinician and patient (e.g., "risks and benefits discussed"). Most accountable justifications (65%) were of uncertain clinical appropriateness.

CONCLUSION

Most justifications clinicians entered across three separate clinical content areas fit within a small number of themes, and these common rationales may aid in the design of effective accountable justification interventions. Justifications varied in terms of level of clinical detail. On their own, most justifications did not clearly represent appropriate clinical decision making.

Postoperative Opioid Prescribing, Use, and Disposal in Children

This article provides an overview of postoperative opioid prescribing, use, and disposal patterns in children and also identifies gaps in knowledge and areas for improvement. We present evidence that there is a need to tailor prescriptions to specific procedures to reduce the number of excess, unused prescription opioid pills in the home. We also explain the need to provide culturally competent care when managing a child's pain after surgery. Finally, we discuss the need for widespread provider and caregiver education about safe prescription opioid use, storage, and disposal.

Effect of Different Interventions to Help Primary Care Clinicians Avoid Unsafe Opioid Prescribing in Opioid-Naive Patients With Acute Noncancer Pain: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Prescription opioids can treat acute pain in primary care but have potential for unsafe use and progression to prolonged opioid prescribing.

Objective

To compare clinician-facing interventions to prevent unsafe opioid prescribing in opioid-naive primary care patients with acute noncancer pain.

Design Setting and Participants

We conducted a multisite, cluster-randomized, 2 × 2 factorial, clinical trial in 3 health care systems that comprised 48 primary care practices and 525 participating clinicians from September 2018 through January 2021. Patient participants were opioid-naive outpatients, 18 years or older, who presented for a qualifying clinic visit with acute noncancer musculoskeletal pain or nonmigraine headache.

Interventions

Practices randomized to: (1) control; (2) opioid justification; (3) monthly clinician comparison emails; or (4) opioid justification and clinician comparison. All groups received opioid prescribing guidelines via the electronic health record at the time of a new opioid prescription.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome measures were receipt of an initial opioid prescription at the qualifying clinic visit. Other outcomes were opioid prescribing for more than 3 months and a concurrent opioid/benzodiazepine prescription over 12-month follow-up.

Results

Among 22 616 enrolled patient participants (9740 women [43.1%]; 64 American Indian/Alaska Native [0.3%]; 590 Asian [2.6%], 1120 Black/African American [5.0%], 1777 Hispanic [7.9%], 225 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander [1.0%], and 18 981 White [83.9%] individuals), the initial opioid prescribing rates at the qualifying clinic visit were 3.1% in the total sample, 4.2% in control, 3.6% in opioid justification, 2.6% in clinician comparison, and 1.9% in opioid justification and clinician comparison. Compared with control, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a new opioid prescription was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.46-1.18; P = .20) for opioid justification and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.38-0.96; P = .03) for clinician comparison. Compared with control, clinician comparison was associated with decreased odds of opioid therapy of more than 3 months (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91; P = .001) and concurrent opioid/benzodiazepine prescription (aOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P = .04), whereas opioid justification did not have a significant effect.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, comparison emails decreased the proportion of opioid-naive patients with acute noncancer pain who received an opioid prescription, progressed to treatment with long-term opioid therapy, or were exposed to concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine therapy. Health care systems can consider adding clinician-targeted nudges to other initiatives as an efficient, scalable approach to further decrease potentially unsafe opioid prescribing.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03537573.

The protocol of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety trial 2 (AESOPS-2): Availability of opioid harm

BACKGROUND

High levels of opioid prescribing in the United States has resulted in an alarming trend in opioid-related harms. The objective of Trial 2 of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety (AESOPS-2) is to dampen the intensity and frequency of opioid prescribing in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation to "go low and slow". We aim to accomplish this by notifying clinicians of harmful patient outcomes, which we expect to increase the mental availability of risks associated with opioid use.

METHODS

The trial is multi-site. Random assignment determines if prescribers to persons who suffer an opioid overdose (fatal or nonfatal) learn of this event (intervention) or practice usual care (control). Clinicians in the intervention group receive a letter notifying them of their patient's overdose. The primary outcome is the change in clinician weekly milligram morphine equivalent (MME) prescribed in a 6-month period before and after receiving the letter. Additional outcomes are the change in the proportion of patients prescribed at least 50 daily MME and in the proportion of patients referred to medication assisted treatment. Group differences in these outcomes will be compared using an intent-to-treat difference-in-differences framework with a mixed-effects regression model to estimate clinician MME.

DISCUSSION

The AESOPS-2 trial will provide new knowledge about whether increasing prescribers' awareness of patients' opioid-related overdoses leads to a reduction in opioid prescribing. Additionally, this trial may better inform how to reduce opioid use disorder and opioid overdoses by lowering population exposure to these drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04758637.