Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33523388›Full record

ArticleCJEM2021

Emergency physician risk assessment practices prior to prescribing opioids.

Mark McKinney, Magdalena Kisilewicz, Ian G Stiell

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CJEM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark McKinneyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Magdalena KisilewiczDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Queensway-Carleton Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ian G StiellDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. istiell@ohri.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSafer opioid prescribing remains a crucial issue for emergency physicians. Policy statements and guidelines recommend deliberate risk assessment for likelihood of current or future opioid use disorder prior to prescribing opioids. However, the practice patterns of emergency physicians remain underreported.

methodsWe surveyed emergency physicians across Canada about their local opioid prescribing policies, their practice patterns of risk assessment prior to prescribing opioids, and which clinical risk factors they find most important.

resultsThe response rate was 20.4% (n = 312/1532). 59.8% of respondents report usually or always assessing for risk. Physicians rely on gestalt (80.3%), targeted histories based on risk factors in the literature (55.6%) or their experience (57.6%), and reviewing medical (83.1%) and medication records (75.6%). Contacting primary prescribers is uncommon (16.3%). A minority routinely use opioid prescribing risk assessment tools (6.4%), have local opioid prescribing policies (27%), or make use of electronic medical record functions to assist risk stratifying (2.4%).

conclusionMany Canadian emergency physicians make risk assessments based on gestalt rather than identifying literature-based risk factors. This conflicts with guidelines calling for routine comprehensive assessment. Further efforts should be directed towards education in optimizing risk assessment; and towards system-level initiatives such as clear local prescribing policies, electronic-systems functionality, and developing assessment tools for use in the ED.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidPhysiciansCanadaHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Risk AssessmentAnalgesics, OpioidEmergency medicineOpioidSubstance misuse

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.