Effect of Different Interventions to Help Primary Care Clinicians Avoid Unsafe Opioid Prescribing in Opioid-Naive Patients with Acute Noncancer Pain: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

5Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Importance: Prescription opioids can treat acute pain in primary care but have potential for unsafe use and progression to prolonged opioid prescribing. Objective: To compare clinician-facing interventions to prevent unsafe opioid prescribing in opioid-naive primary care patients with acute noncancer pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a multisite, cluster-randomized, 2 × 2 factorial, clinical trial in 3 health care systems that comprised 48 primary care practices and 525 participating clinicians from September 2018 through January 2021. Patient participants were opioid-naive outpatients, 18 years or older, who presented for a qualifying clinic visit with acute noncancer musculoskeletal pain or nonmigraine headache. Interventions: Practices randomized to: (1) control; (2) opioid justification; (3) monthly clinician comparison emails; or (4) opioid justification and clinician comparison. All groups received opioid prescribing guidelines via the electronic health record at the time of a new opioid prescription. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measures were receipt of an initial opioid prescription at the qualifying clinic visit. Other outcomes were opioid prescribing for more than 3 months and a concurrent opioid/benzodiazepine prescription over 12-month follow-up. Results: Among 22616 enrolled patient participants (9740 women [43.1%]; 64 American Indian/Alaska Native [0.3%]; 590 Asian [2.6%], 1120 Black/African American [5.0%], 1777 Hispanic [7.9%], 225 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander [1.0%], and 18981 White [83.9%] individuals), the initial opioid prescribing rates at the qualifying clinic visit were 3.1% in the total sample, 4.2% in control, 3.6% in opioid justification, 2.6% in clinician comparison, and 1.9% in opioid justification and clinician comparison. Compared with control, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for a new opioid prescription was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.46-1.18; P =.20) for opioid justification and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.38-0.96; P =.03) for clinician comparison. Compared with control, clinician comparison was associated with decreased odds of opioid therapy of more than 3 months (aOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91; P =.001) and concurrent opioid/benzodiazepine prescription (aOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.00; P =.04), whereas opioid justification did not have a significant effect. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, comparison emails decreased the proportion of opioid-naive patients with acute noncancer pain who received an opioid prescription, progressed to treatment with long-term opioid therapy, or were exposed to concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine therapy. Health care systems can consider adding clinician-targeted nudges to other initiatives as an efficient, scalable approach to further decrease potentially unsafe opioid prescribing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03537573.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kraemer, K. L., Althouse, A. D., Salay, M., Gordon, A. J., Wright, E., Anisman, D., … Wasan, A. D. (2022). Effect of Different Interventions to Help Primary Care Clinicians Avoid Unsafe Opioid Prescribing in Opioid-Naive Patients with Acute Noncancer Pain: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Health Forum, 3(7), E222263. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.2263

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free