ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2022
Variation in prescribing of opioids for emergency department encounters: A cohort study in the Military Health System.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinician approaches to new spine pain cases in primary care: Balance of opioid prescribing and early linkage to exercise therapy and spinal manipulation.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND
objectivesEmergency department (ED) clinicians account for approximately 13% of all opioid prescriptions to opioid-naïve patients and variability in the rates of prescribing have been noted among individual clinicians and different EDs. This study elucidates the amount of variability within a unified health system (the U.S. Military Health System [MHS]) with the expectation that understanding the sources of variability will enable health system leaders to improve the quality of decision making.
methodsThe design was a retrospective cohort study examining variation in opioid prescribing within EDs of the US MHS. Participants were Army soldiers who returned from a deployment and received care between October 2009 and September 2016. The exposure was ED encounters at a military treatment facility. Key measures were the proportion of ED encounters with an opioid prescription fill; total opioid dose of the fill (morphine milligram equivalent, MME); and total opioid days-supply of the fill.
resultsThe mean proportion of ED encounters with an opioid fill across providers was 19.7% (SD 8.8%), median proportion was 18.6%, and the distribution was close to symmetric with the 75th percentile provider prescribing opioids in 24.6% of their ED encounters and the 25th percentile provider prescribing in 13.4% of their encounters. The provider-level mean opioid dose per encounter was 113.1 MME (SD 56.0) with the 75th percentile (130.1) 50% higher than the 25th percentile (87.4). The mean opioid supply per encounter was 6.8 days (SD 3.9) with more than a twofold ratio between the 75th percentile (8.3) and the 25th (4.1). Using a series of multilevel regression models to examine opioid fills associated with ED encounters and their dose levels, the variation among providers within facilities was much larger in magnitude than the variation among facilities.
conclusionAmong ED encounters of Army soldiers at military treatment facilities, there was substantial variation among providers in prescribing opioid prescriptions that were not explained by patient case-mix. These results suggest that programmes and protocols to address less than optimal prescribing in the ED should be initiated to improve the quality of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.