Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34189572›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2021

Reducing postoperative opioid pill prescribing via a quality improvement approach.

Kristian D Stensland, Peter Chang, David Jiang, David Canes, Aaron Berkenwald, Adrian Waisman, Kortney Robinson, Gabriel Brat, Catrina Crociani, Kyle Mcanally and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kristian D StenslandDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.ORCID 0000-0002-3765-3393
Peter ChangDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
David JiangDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
David CanesDivision of Urology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA.
Aaron BerkenwaldDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Adrian WaismanDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Kortney RobinsonDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Gabriel BratDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Catrina CrocianiDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Kyle McanallyDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Sarah HydeDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Brian HollidayDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Jodi MechaberDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Analesa BarakaDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Alireza MoinzadehDivision of Urology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA.
Andrew A WagnerDivision of Urology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USLahey Medical Center · US

Funding

Advanced Training in Urologic OncologyT32CA180984 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Ganesh S Palapattu, VAHAKN B SHAHINIAN · 2014 to 2026
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA180984
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe opioid epidemic has been fueled by prescribing unnecessary quantities of opioid pills for postoperative use. While evidence mounts that postoperative opioids can be reduced or eliminated, implementing such changes within various institutions can be met with many barriers to adoption.

objectiveTo address excess opioid prescribing within our institutions, we applied a plan-do-study-act (PDSA)-like quality improvement strategy to assess local opioid prescribing and use, modify our institutional protocols, and assess the impacts of the change. The opioid epidemic has been fueled by prescribing unnecessary quantities of opioid pills for postoperative use. While evidence mounts that postoperative opioids can be reduced or eliminated, implementing such changes within various institutions can be met with many barriers to adoption. We describe our approach, findings, and lessons learned from our quality improvement approach.

methodsWe prospectively recorded home pain pill usage after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) at two academic institutions from July 2016 to July 2019. Patients prospectively recorded their home pain pill use on a take-home log. Other factors, including numeric pain rating scale on the day of discharge, were extracted from patient records. We analyzed our data and modified opioid prescription protocols to meet the reported use data of 80% of patients. We continued collecting data after the protocol change. We also used our prospectively collected data to assess the accuracy of a retrospective phone survey designed to measure postdischarge opioid use. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of patients taking zero opioid pills postdischarge, median pills taken after discharge and the number of excess pills prescribed but not taken. We compared these outcomes before and after protocol change.

resultsA total of 266 patients (193 RALP, 73 RAPN) were included. Reducing the standard number of prescribed pills did not increase the percentage of patients taking zero pills postdischarge in either group (RALP: 47% vs. 41%; RAPN 48% vs. 34%). The patients in either group reporting postoperative Day 1 pain score of 0 or 1 were much more likely to use zero postdischarge opioid pills. Our reduction in prescribing protocol resulted in an estimated reduction in excess pills from 1555 excess pills in the prior protocol to just 155 excess pills in the new protocol.

conclusionOur PDSA-like approach led to an acceptable protocol revision resulting in significant reductions in excess pills released into the community. Reducing the quantity of opioids prescribed postoperatively does not increase the percentage of patients taking zero pills postdischarge. To eliminate opioid use may require no-opioid pathways. Our approach can be used in implementing zero opioid discharge plans and can be applied to opioid reduction interventions at other institutions where barriers to reduced prescribing exist.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidQuality ImprovementAftercareHumansMalePatient DischargePractice Patterns, Physicians'Retrospective StudiesAnalgesics, Opioidhealth services researchminimally invasive surgeryopioidspain controlPDSAquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID34189572
PMCPMC8285762
OpenAlexW3174710594

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.