IntroductionOpioid prescribing patterns have come under increasing scrutiny with the recent rise in opioid prescriptions, opioid misuse and abuse, and opioid-related adverse events. To date, there have been limited studies on the effect of default tablet quantities as part of emergency department (ED) electronic order entry. Our goal was to evaluate opioid prescribing patterns before and after the removal of a default quantity of 20 tablets from ED electronic order entry.MethodsWe performed a retrospective observational study at a single academic, urban ED with 58,000 annual visits. We identified all adult patients (18 years or older) seen in the ED and discharged home with prescriptions for tablet forms of hydrocodone and oxycodone (including mixed formulations with acetaminophen). We compared the quantity of tablets prescribed per opioid prescription 12 months before and 10 months after the electronic order-entry prescription default quantity of 20 tablets was removed and replaced with no default quantity. No specific messaging was given to providers, to avoid influencing prescribing patterns. We used two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test, two-sample test of proportions, and Pearson’s chi-squared tests where appropriate for statistical analysis.ResultsA total of 4,104 adult patients received discharge prescriptions for opioids in the pre-intervention period (151.6 prescriptions per 1,000 discharged adult patients), and 2,464 post-intervention (106.69 prescriptions per 1,000 discharged adult patients). The median quantity of opioid tablets prescribed decreased from 20 (interquartile ration [IQR] 10–20) to 15 (IQR 10–20) (p<0.0001) after removal of the default quantity. While the most frequent quantity of tablets received in both groups was 20 tablets, the proportion of patients who received prescriptions on discharge that contained 20 tablets decreased from 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] [0.48–0.52]) to 0.23 (95% CI [0.21–0.24]) (p<0.001) after default quantity removal.ConclusionAlthough the median number of tablets differed significantly before and after the intervention, the clinical significance of this is unclear. An observed wider distribution of the quantity of tablets prescribed after removal of the default quantity of 20 may reflect more appropriate prescribing patterns (i.e., less severe indications receiving fewer tabs and more severe indications receiving more). A default value of 20 tablets for opioid prescriptions may be an example of the electronic medical record’s ability to reduce practice variability in medication orders actually counteracting optimal patient care.

No abstract

Our modified Delphi process resulted in the identification of 46 final triggers for the detection of adverse events among ED patients. These triggers should be pilot field tested to quantify their individual and collective performance in detecting all-cause harm to ED patients.

Objectives Quality and safety review for performance improvement is important for systems of care and is required for US academic emergency departments (EDs). Assessment of the impact of patient safety initiatives in the context of increasing burdens of quality measurement compels standardized, meaningful, high-yield approaches for performance review. Limited data describe how quality and safety reviews are currently conducted and how well they perform in detecting patient harm and areas for improvement. We hypothesized that decades-old approaches used in many academic EDs are inefficient and low yield for identifying patient harm. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study to evaluate the efficiency and yield of current quality review processes at five academic EDs for a 12-month period. Sites provided descriptions of their current practice and collected summary data on the number and severity of events identified in their reviews and the referral sources that led to their capture. Categories of common referral sources were established at the beginning of the study. Sites used the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's definition in defining an adverse event and a modified National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (MERP) Index for grading severity of events. Results Participating sites had similar processes for quality review, including a two-level review process, monthly reviews and conferences, similar screening criteria, and a grading system for evaluating cases. In 60 months of data collection, we reviewed a total of 4735 cases and identified 381 events. This included 287 near-misses, errors/events (MERP A–I) and 94 adverse events (AEs) (MERP E–I). The overall AE rate (event rate with harm) was 1.99 (95% confidence interval = 1.62%–2.43%), ranging from 1.24% to 3.47% across sites. The overall rate of quality concerns (events without harm) was 6.06% (5.42%–6.78%), ranging from 2.96% to 10.95% across sites. Seventy-two–hour returns were the most frequent referral source used, accounting for 47% of the cases reviewed but with a yield of only 0.81% in identifying harm. Other referral sources similarly had very low yields. External referrals were the highest yield referral source, with 14.34% (10.64%–19.03%) identifying AEs. As a percentage of the 94 AEs identified, external referrals also accounted for 41.49% of cases. Conclusions With an overall adverse event rate of 1.99%, commonly used referral sources seem to be low yield and inefficient for detecting patient harm. Approximately 6% of the cases identified by these criteria yielded a near miss or quality concern. New approaches to quality and safety review in the ED are needed to optimize their yield and efficiency for identifying harm and areas for improvement.

No abstract