ArticleHeliyon2023
Does electronic prescribing of controlled substances deter controlled substance prescribing in emergency departments?
Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physicians' Perspectives with the E-prescribing System in Five Teaching Hospitals.Applied clinical informatics · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine the association between electronic prescribing of controlled substances (EPCS) and controlled substance prescription patterns in U.S. emergency departments (ED). Materials and methods: We conducted cross-sectional analysis at both the ED level and visit level, using the 2016-2017 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys. Results: The sample included 24,296 visits to 316 EDs, 45% of which utilized EPCS. Pain-related visits were associated with significantly higher odds of prescriptions for any controlled substances (OR = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.32-1.75; p < 0.001) and Schedule II substances (OR = 2.13; 95% CI: 1.80-2.52; p < 0.001). Conditional on pain-related visits, EPCS was significantly associated with higher odds of any (OR 1.31; 95% CI: 1.08-1.59; p = 0.006) and Schedule III (OR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.03-1.85; p = 0.031) controlled substance prescriptions. For non-pain related visits, EPCS was not associated with changes in controlled substance prescriptions. Discussion: While EPCS transmits prescriptions directly to pharmacies in order to reduce drug diversion problems, the results indicated no significant association between EPCS use and prescriptions for Schedule II drugs which include opioids. As many states move towards mandating EPCS use in order to curb the opioid epidemic, future studies should examine the barriers to the effective implementation of EPCS, in the context of other systems such as Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs. Conclusion: EPCS does not appear to deter Schedule II controlled substances prescription including opioids in an ED visit. It may facilitate any and Schedule III controlled substance prescriptions when pain was involved in an ED visit.
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.