S'abonner

A bundle of opioid-sparing strategies to eliminate routine opioid prescribing in a urogynecology practice - 26/07/24

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.05.043 
Jessica M. Selle, DO a, , Danielle M. Strozza, MD a, Megan E. Branda, MS b, John B. Gebhart, MD, MS a, Emanuel C. Trabuco, MD, MS a, John A. Occhino, MD, MS a, Brian J. Linder, MD, MS a, c, Sherif A. El Nashar, MD, MS d, Annetta M. Madsen, MD a
a Division of Urogynecology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 
b Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 
c Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 
d Division of Urogynecology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 

Corresponding author: Jessica M. Selle, DO.

Abstract

Background

Current evidence supports that many patients do not use prescribed opioids following reconstructive pelvic surgery, yet it remains unclear if it is feasible to eliminate routine opioid prescriptions without a negative impact on patients or providers.

Objective

To determine if there is a difference in the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after implementing a bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol compared to usual care after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery (transvaginal, laparoscopic, or robotic). Secondary objectives include measures of patient-perceived pain control and provider workload.

Study Design

The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol intervention was implemented as a division-wide evidence-based practice change on August 1, 2022. This retrospective cohort compares a 6-month postintervention (bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol) cohort to 6-month preintervention (usual care) of patients undergoing minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. A 3-month washout period was observed after bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol initiation. We excluded patients <18 years, failure to consent to research, combined surgery with other specialties, urge urinary incontinence or urinary retention procedures alone, and minor procedures not typically requiring opioids. Primary outcome was measured by proportion discharged without opioids and total oral morphine equivalents prescribed. Pain control was measured by pain scores, postdischarge prescriptions and refills, phone calls and visits related to pain, and satisfaction with pain control. Provider workload was demonstrated by phone calls and postdischarge prescription refills. Data were obtained through chart review on all patients who met inclusion criteria. Primary analysis only included patients prescribed opioids according to the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol protocol. Two sample t tests compared continuous variables and chi-square tests compared categorical variables.

Results

Four hundred sixteen patients were included in the primary analysis (207 bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol, 209 usual care). Baseline demographics were similar between groups, except a lower proportion of irritable bowel syndrome (13% vs 23%; P<.01) and pelvic pain (15% vs 24.9%; P=.01), and higher history of prior gynecologic surgery (69.1% vs 58.4%; P=.02) in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was more likely to be discharged without opioids (68.1% vs 10.0%; P<.01). In those prescribed opioids, total oral morphine equivalents on discharge was significantly lower in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort (48.1 vs 81.8; P<.01). The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort had a 20.6 greater odds (confidence interval 11.4, 37.1) of being discharged without opioids after adjusting for surgery type, arthritis/joint pain, IBS, pelvic pain, and contraindication to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was also less likely to receive a rescue opioid prescription after discharge (1.4% vs 9.5%; P=.03). There were no differences in opioid prescription refills (19.7% vs 18.1%; P=.77), emergency room visits for pain (3.4% vs 2.9%; P=.76), postoperative pain scores (mean 4.7 vs 4.0; P=.07), or patient satisfaction with pain control (81.5% vs 85.6%; P=.21). After bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol implementation, the proportion of postoperative phone calls for pain also decreased (12.6% vs 21.5%; P=.02). Similar results were identified when nonadherent prescribing was included in the analysis.

Conclusion

A bundle of evidence-based opioid sparing strategies and tiered prescribing based on inpatient use increases the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery without evidence of uncontrolled pain or increased provider workload.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : expectation setting, opioid-sparing strategies, postoperative pain management, restrictive opioid prescribing


Plan


 The author(s) report(s) no conflict of interest.
 Presented at the SGS 50th Annual Scientific Meeting 2024.
 Cite this article as: Selle JM, Strozza DM, Branda ME, et al. A bundle of opioid-sparing strategies to eliminate routine opioid prescribing in an urogynecology practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024;231:278.e1-17.


© 2024  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 231 - N° 2

P. 278.e1-278.e17 - août 2024 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Human vs machine: identifying ChatGPT-generated abstracts in Gynecology and Urogynecology
  • Evelyn T. Pan, Maria Florian-Rodriguez
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Lichen planus follicularis tumidus of the vulva
  • Denali E. Termin, Kathryn C. Welch, Hope K. Haefner, Lynette J. Margesson, Maxwell D. Wang, Natalie A. Saunders, Ebony C. Parker-Featherstone

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.