We have located links that may give you full text access.
Opioid-related Policies in New England Emergency Departments.
Academic Emergency Medicine 2016 September
OBJECTIVES: The opioid abuse and overdose epidemic in the United States has led to the need for new practice policies to guide clinicians. We describe implementation of opioid-related policies in emergency departments (EDs) in New England to gauge progress and determine where further work is needed.
METHODS: This study analyzed data from the 2015 National Emergency Department Inventory-New England survey. The survey queried directors of every ED (n = 195) in the six New England states to determine the implementation of five specific policies related to opioid management. ED characteristics (e.g., annual visits, location, and admission rates) were also obtained and a multivariable analysis was conducted to identify ED characteristics independently associated with the number of opioid-related policies implemented.
RESULTS: Overall, 169 EDs (87%) responded, with a >80% response rate in each state. Implementation of opioid-related policies varied as follows: 1) use of a screening tool for patients with suspected prescription opioid abuse potential (n = 30, 18%), 2) access state prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) before prescribing opioids (n = 132, 78%), 3) notify the primary opioid prescriber when prescribing opioids for ED patients with chronic pain (n = 69, 41%), 4) refer patients with opioid abuse to recovery resources (n = 117, 70%), and 5) prescribe naloxone to patients at risk of opioid overdose after ED discharge (n = 19, 12%). EDs located in metropolitan areas and with at least one attending physician on duty 24/7 were less likely to implement opioid policies (incident rate ratio [IRR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-0.89; and IRR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.6-1.0, respectively) while EDs with ≥15% hospitalization rate that used electronic computerized medication ordering and those in Rhode Island were more likely to implement opioid policies (IRR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.03-1.48; IRR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.19-3.22; and IRR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.08-1.56, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of opioid-related policies varies among New England EDs. The presence of policies recommending use of screening tools and prescribing naloxone for at-risk patients was low, whereas those regarding utilization of the PDMP and referral of patients with opioid abuse to recovery resources were more common. These data provide important benchmarks for future evaluations and recommendations.
METHODS: This study analyzed data from the 2015 National Emergency Department Inventory-New England survey. The survey queried directors of every ED (n = 195) in the six New England states to determine the implementation of five specific policies related to opioid management. ED characteristics (e.g., annual visits, location, and admission rates) were also obtained and a multivariable analysis was conducted to identify ED characteristics independently associated with the number of opioid-related policies implemented.
RESULTS: Overall, 169 EDs (87%) responded, with a >80% response rate in each state. Implementation of opioid-related policies varied as follows: 1) use of a screening tool for patients with suspected prescription opioid abuse potential (n = 30, 18%), 2) access state prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) before prescribing opioids (n = 132, 78%), 3) notify the primary opioid prescriber when prescribing opioids for ED patients with chronic pain (n = 69, 41%), 4) refer patients with opioid abuse to recovery resources (n = 117, 70%), and 5) prescribe naloxone to patients at risk of opioid overdose after ED discharge (n = 19, 12%). EDs located in metropolitan areas and with at least one attending physician on duty 24/7 were less likely to implement opioid policies (incident rate ratio [IRR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-0.89; and IRR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.6-1.0, respectively) while EDs with ≥15% hospitalization rate that used electronic computerized medication ordering and those in Rhode Island were more likely to implement opioid policies (IRR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.03-1.48; IRR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.19-3.22; and IRR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.08-1.56, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of opioid-related policies varies among New England EDs. The presence of policies recommending use of screening tools and prescribing naloxone for at-risk patients was low, whereas those regarding utilization of the PDMP and referral of patients with opioid abuse to recovery resources were more common. These data provide important benchmarks for future evaluations and recommendations.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app