scholarly journals MP35: Targeting the opioid crisis by influencing opioid prescribing in the emergency department

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. S55-S55
Author(s):  
D. Shelton ◽  
V. Teo ◽  
K. Ding ◽  
D. Hefferon
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Electronic Prescription ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Opioid Crisis ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Discharged Patients

Background: Liberal prescribing of opioids is a major contributing factor to the opioid crisis. Patients who take opioids for >5 consecutive days are at greater risk of long-term use. Evidence shows that significantly more opioids are prescribed for emergency department (ED) patients with acute pain compared to amounts consumed. Guidelines recommend prescribing a 3-day supply or 10-15 tablets of opioids for patients with acute pain Aim Statement: By January 2020, >70% of opioid prescriptions from our ED will be for <15 tablets of morphine 5 mg equivalents. Measures & Design: Emergency physicians were educated on best practice of prescribing opioids for discharged patients. An electronic prescription writer was built for discharged ED patients with a pop-up reminder for quantities >15 tablets (indicating a recommended quantity of 10-15 tablets) and a pop-up reminder for quantities >30 tablets (indicating a maximum quantity of 30 tablets and recommended quantity). A feature was built to auto-populate a prescription for morphine 5 mg po q4h prn x 10 tablets to facilitate adherence to guidelines. Outcome Measure % opioid prescriptions for <15 tablets of morphine 5 mg equivalents Process Measure Amount of opioids prescribed for discharged ED patients, measured as morphine 5 mg equivalents Number of opioid prescriptions for >30 tablets of morphine 5 mg equivalents Balancing Measure Number of patients that return to ED within 7 days and receive a repeat opioid prescription. Evaluation/Results: Prior to implementation of the electronic prescription writer a sample audit revealed that 50% of opioid prescriptions were written for <15 tablets of morphine 5 mg equivalents. For the first three quarters of 2019, 62%, 61% and 69% of opioid prescriptions were written for <15 tablets of morphine 5 mg equivalents. Only two prescriptions during the study period were for >30 tablets of morphine 5 mg equivalents. An average number of 7 patients per quarter were given a repeat opioid prescription during a return ED visit. Discussion/Impact: We were successful in influencing emergency physicians to prescribe fewer opioids to discharged patients. This has the potential to avoid converting ED patients with acute pain into long-term opioid users and to avoid the diversion of unused opioid tablets.

scholarly journals Creating opioid dependence in the emergency department

CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suneel Upadhye
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Opioid Dependence ◽  
Prescribing Patterns ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Naive Patient ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Opioid Prescribing

Clinical questionWhat is the risk of creating opioid dependence from an ED opioid prescription?Article chosenBarnett ML, Olenski AR, Jena AB. Opioid-prescribing patterns of emergency physicians and risk of long-term use. N Engl J Med 2017;376:663-73, doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1610524.ObjectiveThis study examined the risk of creating long-term opioid dependence from a prescription written in an opioid-naive patient in the ED.

scholarly journals O84: OPIOID PRESCRIPTION AT OPERATIVE DISCHARGE (OPIOID STUDY)

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Prescription Opioids ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Opioid Crisis ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Major General

Abstract   Presenting Author Email: [email protected] Research Question Opioid misuse is a major health epidemic. Surveys in the US have shown that over 130 patients die daily due to opioid related drug overdose with 10.3 million patients misused prescription opioids in 2018. This is the first study in the UK to explore the magnitude of the opioid crisis in our country. The opioid crisis was identified first in the US after life expectancy reduced dramatically in 2015. One of the main reasons attributed to this was the increase in the number of overdoses and suicides, both linked with the use of opioid drugs. Between 1999 and 2017 the number of deaths from opioid overdoses increased almost six fold. The 2019 National Survey on Drug use and Health in the US showed that 10.3 million patients misused prescription opioids in 2018 and 2 million patients with an opioid use disorder. Factors contributing to opioid dependence were identified as the use of modified release formulations, the use of repeat opioid prescriptions and the treatment of acute pain. Background and Aim The aim of the study is to explore the magnitude of the opioid crisis in the UK, by identifying risk factors for persistent opioid use following major general surgical intervention. Design Phase 1 of the OPiOiD study is a national retrospective audit. We are aiming to identify risk factors for persistent opioid use in patients undergoing major general surgical interventions. Specifically we will be assessing the number of patients given a duration or point of review when opioids should be stopped and whether any written information has been given to these patients on discharge regarding safe use of opioids and de-prescribing advice. 23 hospitals across the UK have registered so far. Data are collected using the electronic discharge summaries send to the GPs and copies given to patients. Phase 2 of the study will be to proceed with a national observational study with the aim to develop strategies to promote safe and effective management of acute pain. Team and infrastructure The East Midlands Surgical Academic Network (EMSAN) leads the study, supervised by Dr Roger Knaggs, Associate Professor School of Pharmacy University of Nottingham, Dr Nicholas Levy, Department of Anaesthesia and peri-operative Medicine West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust and Professor Dileep Lobo, Nottingham Digestive Diseases Centre National Institute for Health Research.

Opioid crisis in primary care? An audit of high-dose opioid prescribing at Bangholm GP Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp20X711581
Author(s):  
Charlotte Greene ◽  
Alice Pearson
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Opioid Prescribing ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines

BackgroundOpioids are effective analgesics for acute and palliative pain, but there is no evidence base for long-term pain relief. They also carry considerable risks such as overdose and dependence. Despite this, they are increasingly prescribed for chronic pain. In the UK, opioid prescribing more than doubled between 1998 and 2018.AimAn audit at Bangholm GP Practice to understand the scale of high-strength opioid prescribing. The aim of the audit was to find out if indications, length of prescription, discussion, and documentation at initial consultation and review process were consistent with best-practice guidelines.MethodA search on Scottish Therapeutics Utility for patients prescribed an average daily dose of opioid equivalent ≥50 mg morphine between 1 July 2019 and 1 October 2019, excluding methadone, cancer pain, or palliative prescriptions. The Faculty of Pain Medicine’s best-practice guidelines were used.ResultsDemographics: 60 patients (37 females), average age 62, 28% registered with repeat opioid prescription, 38% comorbid depression. Length of prescription: average 6 years, 57% >5 years, 22% >10 years. Opioid: 52% tramadol, 23% on two opioids. Indications: back pain (42%), osteoarthritis (12%), fibromyalgia (10%). Initial consultation: 7% agreed outcomes, 35% follow-up documented. Review: 56% 4-week, 70% past year.ConclusionOpioid prescribing guidelines are not followed. The significant issues are: long-term prescriptions for chronic pain, especially back pain; new patients registering with repeat prescriptions; and no outcomes of treatment agreed, a crucial message is the goal is pain management rather than relief. Changes have been introduced at the practice: a patient information sheet, compulsory 1-month review for new patients on opioids, and in-surgery pain referrals.

scholarly journals P113: Examining emergency physicians’ self-reported opioid prescribing practices for the treatment of acute pain: A Newfoundland perspective

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. S105-S106
Author(s):  
P. Doran ◽  
G. Sheppard ◽  
B. Metcalfe
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Oral Morphine ◽  
Prescribing Patterns ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Opioid Prescribing ◽  
Ensure Patient Safety ◽  
Evidence Based Guidelines

Introduction: Canadians are the second largest consumers of prescription opioids per capita in the world. Emergency physicians tend to prescribe stronger and larger quantities of opioids, while family physicians write the most opioid prescriptions overall. These practices have been shown to precipitate future dependence, toxicity and the need for hospitalization. Despite this emerging evidence, there is a paucity of research on emergency physicians’ opioid prescribing practices in Canada. The objectives of this study were to describe our local emergency physicians’ opioid prescribing patterns both in the emergency department and upon discharge, and to explore factors that impact their prescribing decisions. Methods: Emergency physicians from two urban, adult emergency departments in St. John's, Newfoundland were anonymously surveyed using a web-based survey tool. All 42 physicians were invited to participate via email during the six-week study period and reminders were sent at weeks two and four. Results: A total of 21 participants responded to the survey. Over half of respondents (57.14%) reported that they “often” prescribe opioids for the treatment of acute pain in the emergency department, and an equal number of respondents reported doing so “sometimes” at discharge. Eighty-five percent of respondents reported most commonly prescribing intravenous morphine for acute pain in the emergency department, and over thirty-five percent reported most commonly prescribing oral morphine upon discharge. Patient age and risk of misuse were the most frequently cited factors that influenced respondents’ prescribing decisions. Only 4 of the 22 respondents reported using evidence-based guidelines to tailor their opioid prescribing practices, while an overwhelming majority (80.95%) believe there is a need for evidence-based opioid prescribing guidelines for the treatment of acute pain. Sixty percent of respondents completed additional training in safe opioid prescribing, yet less than half of respondents (42.86%) felt they could help to mitigate the opioid crisis by prescribing fewer opioids in the emergency department. Conclusion: Emergency physicians frequently prescribe opioids for the treatment of acute pain and new evidence suggests that this practice can lead to significant morbidity. While further research is needed to better understand emergency physicians’ opioid prescribing practices, our findings support the need for evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of acute pain to ensure patient safety.

scholarly journals Opioid prescription practices for patients discharged from the emergency department with acute musculoskeletal fractures

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 486-493
Author(s):  
Garrick Mok ◽  
Hailey Newton ◽  
Lisa Thurgur ◽  
Marie-Joe Nemnom ◽  
Ian G. Stiell
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Prescription Data ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Total Dosage ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Prescription Practices ◽  
Ed Visits

ABSTRACTBackgroundOpioid related mortality rate has increased 200% over the past decade. Studies show variable emergency department (ED) opioid prescription practices and a correlation with increased long-term use. ED physicians may be contributing to this problem. Our objective was to analyze ED opioid prescription practices for patients with acute fractures.MethodsWe conducted a review of ED patients seen at two campuses of a tertiary care hospital. We evaluated a consecutive sample of patients with acute fractures (January 2016–April 2016) seen by ED physicians. Patients admitted or discharged by consultant services were excluded. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged with an opioid prescription. Data were collected using screening lists, electronic records, and interobserver agreement. We calculated simple descriptive statistics and a multivariable analysis.ResultsWe enrolled 816 patients, including 441 females (54.0%). Most common fracture was wrist/hand (35.2%). 260 patients (31.8%) were discharged with an opioid; hydromorphone (N = 115, range 1–120 mg) was most common. 35 patients (4.3%) had pain related ED visits <1 month after discharge. Fractures of the lumbar spine (OR 10.78 [95% CI: 3.15–36.90]) and rib(s)/sternum/thoracic spine (OR 5.46 [95% CI: 2.88–10.35)] had a significantly higher likelihood of opioid prescriptions.ConclusionsThe majority of patients presenting to the ED with acute fractures were not discharged with an opioid. Hydromorphone was the most common opioid prescribed, with large variations in total dosage. Overall, there were few return to ED visits. We recommend standardization of ED opioid prescribing, with attention to limiting total dosage.

scholarly journals MP58: Have opioid prescription by emergency physicians changed significantly over five years?

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. S63-S63
Author(s):  
M. Wei ◽  
M. Da Silva ◽  
J. Perry
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Abdominal Pain ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Opioid Analgesia ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Emergency Department Care ◽  
Undetermined Etiology

Introduction: It is believed by some that emergency physicians prescribe more opioids than required to manage patients’ pain, and this may contribute to opioid misuse. The objective of our study was to assess if there has been a change in opioid prescribing practices by emergency physicians over time for undifferentiated abdominal pain. Methods: A medical record review for adult patients presenting at two urban academic tertiary care emergency departments was conducted for two distinct time periods; the years of 2012 and 2017. The first 500 patients within each time period with a discharge diagnosis of “abdominal pain” or “abdominal pain not yet diagnosed” were included. Data were collected regarding analgesia received in the emergency department and opioid prescriptions written. Opioids were standardized into morphine equivalent doses to compare quantities of opioids prescribed. Analyses included t-test for continuous and chi-square for categorical data. Results: 1,000 patients were included in our study. The mean age was 42.0 years and 69.6% of patients were female. Comparing 2017 to 2012, there was a non-significant decrease in opioid prescriptions written for patients discharged directly by emergency physicians, from 17.8% to 14.4% (p = 0.14). Mean opioid quantities per prescription decreased from 130.4 milligrams of morphine equivalents per prescription to 98.9 milligrams per prescription (p = 0.002). 13.9% of opioid prescriptions in 2017 were for more than 3 days, which is a decrease from 28.1% in 2012. During the emergency department care, there was an increase in foundational analgesia use prior to initiating opioids from 17.6% to 26.8% (p = 0.001). There was also a decrease for within ED opioid analgesia use from 40.0% to 32.8% (p = 0.018). Conclusion: Opioid prescription rates did not change significantly during our study. However, physicians reduced the quantity of opioids per prescription and used less opioid analgesia in the emergency department for abdominal pain of undetermined etiology.

scholarly journals Optimizing Non-invasive Oxygenation for COVID-19 Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Acute Respiratory Distress: A Case Report

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-331
Author(s):  
David Zodda ◽  
Allyson Hanson ◽  
Alyssa Berns
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Respiratory Distress ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nasal Cannula ◽  
Blood Oxygenation ◽  
Severe Hypoxia ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Number Of Patients

Introduction: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to an increase in the number of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with severe hypoxia and acute respiratory distress. With limited resources and ventilators available, emergency physicians working at a hospital within the epicenter of the United States outbreak developed a stepwise, non-invasive oxygenation strategy for treating COVID-19 patients presenting with severe hypoxia and acute respiratory distress. Case Report: A 72-year-old male suspected of having the COVID-19 virus presented to the ED with shortness of breath. He was found to be severely tachypneic, febrile, with rales in all lung fields. His initial oxygen saturation registered at SpO2 (blood oxygenation saturation) 55% on room air. Emergency physicians employed a novel non-invasive oxygenation strategy using a nasal cannula, non-rebreather, and self-proning. This approach led to a reversal of the patient’s respiratroy distress and hypoxia (SpO2 88-95%) for the following 24 hours.This non-invasive intervention allowed providers time to obtain and initiate high-flow nasal cannula and discuss end-of-life wishes with the patient and his family. Conclusion: Our case highlights a stepwise, organized approach to providing non-invasive oxygenation for COVID-19 patients presenting with severe hypoxia and acute respiratory distress. This approach primarily employs resources and equipment that are readily available to healthcare providers around the world. The intent of this strategy is to provide conventional alternatives to aid in the initial airway management of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals The Changes in Epidemiology of Visiting Emergency Department at COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
SungJoon Park ◽  
Young-Hoon Yoon ◽  
Ji Young Lee ◽  
Eusun Lee ◽  
Hong Seok Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
Disease Outbreak ◽  
Emergency Department Visits ◽  
World Health ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Level Of Consciousness ◽  
Discharged Patients ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Epidemiological Characteristics

Abstract BackgroundOn December 31, 2019, a type of pneumonia with unknown origin was reported in Wuhan, China. It was named as coronavirus disease 2019 by the World Health Organization. Several studies showed that the outbreaks of infectious diseases affect the emergency department visits. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the epidemiological characteristics of patients visiting the emergency department during the coronavirus disease outbreak.MethodThis retrospective observational study was conducted in the three tertiary emergency departments. To evaluate the general characteristics of patients visiting the emergency department, data on sex, age, date and time of visit, initial blood pressure, heart rate, respiration rate, body temperature, level of consciousness, and disposition upon discharge were collected.ResultsA total of 180,192 patients were enrolled in this study. There were 52,245 patients who visited the emergency department during the coronavirus disease outbreak (December 2019–April 2020). This number was significantly reduced compared with the 64,405 and 63,542 patients who visited during the pre-coronavirus disease period. During the period of coronavirus disease outbreak, the proportion of alert patients began to decline from February to April. Also, the proportions of patients with Korean Triage and Acuity scores 4–5 and discharged patients decreased during the same period. The number of patients who were diagnosed with “influenza because of identified seasonal influenza virus” decreased to 1,507 (2.9%), compared with the 2,131 (3.4%) and 2,157 (3.3%) patients diagnosed with this condition during the pre-coronavirus disease period.ConclusionThe study showed changes in the patterns of emergency department visits during the coronavirus disease outbreak. During this period, the total number of patients and non-emergency patients visiting the emergency department decreased.

scholarly journals Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding opioid use in the pediatric emergency department

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. e10-e10
Author(s):  
Megan Fowler ◽  
Samina Ali ◽  
Serge Gouin ◽  
Amy Drendel ◽  
Naveen Poonai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Pediatric Emergency ◽  
Management Approach ◽  
Subspecialty Training ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Paediatric Emergency ◽  
Opioid Crisis

Abstract BACKGROUND Inadequate pain management in children is ubiquitous in the emergency department (ED). Inadequate pain management in children can have both short and long term detrimental effects. As the current national opioid crisis has highlighted, physicians are caught between balancing pain management and the risk of long term opioid dependence. OBJECTIVES This study aimed to describe paediatric emergency physicians’ (PEPs) willingness to prescribe opioids to children in the ED and at discharge, perceived knowledge regarding common fears and myths about opioid use, management approach to hypothetical scenarios of varying musculoskeletal injury (MSK-I) pain in children, and perceived facilitators and barriers to prescribing opioids. DESIGN/METHODS A unique survey tool was created using published methodology guidelines. Information regarding practices, knowledge, attitudes, perceived barriers, facilitators and demographics were collected. The survey was distributed to all physician members of Pediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC), using a modified Dillman’s Tailored Design method, from October to December 2017. RESULTS The response rate was 49.7% (124/242); 53% (57/107) were female, mean age was 43.6 years (+/- 8.7), and 58% (72/124) had paediatric emergency subspecialty training. The most common first line pain medication in the ED was ibuprofen for mild, moderate and severe MSK-I related pain (94.4% (117/124), 89.5% (111/124), and 62.9% (78/124), respectively). For moderate and severe MSK-I pain, intranasal fentanyl was the most common opioid for first (35.5% (44/124) and 61.3% (76/124), respectively) and second line pain management (41.1% (51/124) and 20.2% (25/124), respectively). 74.8% (89/119) of PEPs reported that an opioid protocol would be helpful, specifically for morphine, fentanyl, and hydromorphone. Using a 0–100 scale, physicians minimally worried about physical dependence (13.3 +/-19.3), addiction (16.6 +/-19.8), and diversion of opioids (32.8+/-26.4) when prescribing short-term opioids to children. They reported that the current opioid crisis minimally influenced their willingness to prescribe opioids (30.0 +/-26.2). Physicians reported rarely (36%; 45/125) or never (28%; 35/125) completing a screening risk assessment prior to prescribing opioids. CONCLUSION Intranasal fentanyl was the top opioid for all MSK-I pain intensities. PEPs are minimally concerned regarding dependence, addiction, and the current opioid crisis when prescribing short-term opioids to children. There is an urgent need for evidence regarding the dependence and addiction risk for children receiving short term opioids in order to create knowledge translation tools for ED physicians. Opioid specific protocols in the ED would likely improve physician comfort in responsible and adequate pain management for children.

scholarly journals MP06: Impact of anticoagulation on mortality and resource utilization among critically ill patients with major bleeding in the emergency department

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S44
Author(s):  
G. Mok ◽  
S. Fernando ◽  
L. Castellucci ◽  
D. Dowlatshahi ◽  
B. Rochwerg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Total Hospital ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: Patients with major bleeding (e.g. gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage [ICH]) are commonly encountered in the Emergency Department (ED). A growing number of patients are on either oral or parenteral anticoagulation (AC), but the impact of AC on outcomes of patients with major bleeding is unknown. With regards to oral anticoagulation (OAC), we particularly sought to analyze differences between patients on Warfarin or Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs). Methods: We analyzed a prospectively collected registry (2011-2016) of patients who presented to the ED with major bleeding at two academic hospitals. “Major bleeding” was defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. The primary outcome, in-hospital mortality, was analyzed using a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included discharge to long-term care among survivors, total hospital length of stay (LOS) among survivors, and total hospital costs. Results: 1,477 patients with major bleeding were included. AC use was found among 215 total patients (14.6%). Among OAC patients (n = 181), 141 (77.9%) had used Warfarin, and 40 (22.1%) had used a DOAC. 484 patients (32.8%) died in-hospital. AC use was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.50 [1.17-1.93]). Among survivors to discharge, AC use was associated with higher discharge to long-term care (adjusted OR: 1.73 [1.18-2.57]), prolonged median LOS (19 days vs. 16 days, P = 0.03), and higher mean costs ($69,273 vs. $58,156, P = 0.02). With regards to OAC, a higher proportion of ICH was seen among patients on Warfarin (39.0% vs. 32.5%), as compared to DOACs. No difference in mortality was seen between DOACs and Warfarin (adjusted OR: 0.84 [0.40-1.72]). Patients with major bleeding on Warfarin had longer median LOS (11 days vs. 6 days, P = 0.03) and higher total costs ($51,524 vs. $35,176, P &lt; 0.01) than patients on DOACs. Conclusion: AC use was associated with higher mortality among ED patients with major bleeding. Among survivors, AC use was associated with increased LOS, costs, and discharge to long-term care. Among OAC patients, no difference in mortality was found. Warfarin was associated with prolonged LOS and costs, likely secondary to higher incidence of ICH, as compared to DOACs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document