ArticleAmerican journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality
Clinician Views of an Opioid Prescribing Report with Peer Comparisons and Patient-Reported Outcomes.
Article in American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Providing feedback to clinicians on their prescribing is a promising approach to right-sizing opioid prescriptions. The present research investigated the perceived acceptability, appropriateness, helpfulness, and areas for improvement of a monthly report providing surgical clinicians feedback on their postoperative opioid prescribing relative to guidelines, peer prescribing, and patient-reported pills taken, as well as on patient-reported ability to manage pain. Between January and May 2023, surgeons, advanced practice providers, and residents who recently received these reports as part of a health system quality improvement intervention completed a survey (n = 38) or interview (n = 8). Mean (SD) acceptability of the prescribing report was 4.2 (0.8), and appropriateness was 4.2 (0.8); appropriateness varied by clinical role. All features of the report were rated as "very" or "extremely" helpful by a majority of respondents. Interviewees wished for fuller explanations, real-time updates, and improved accuracy. These findings can inform the design of clinician feedback in learning health systems.
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.