Opioid stewardship program implementation in rural and critical access hospitals in Arizona

Q3 Medicine Journal of opioid management Pub Date : 2024-02-08 DOI:10.5055/jom.0842
Benjamin R. Brady, Bianca SantaMaria, Kathryn Tucker Ortiz y Pino, Bridget S. Murphy
{"title":"Opioid stewardship program implementation in rural and critical access hospitals in Arizona","authors":"Benjamin R. Brady, Bianca SantaMaria, Kathryn Tucker Ortiz y Pino, Bridget S. Murphy","doi":"10.5055/jom.0842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of this study is to examine rural hospitals' status in implementing opioid stewardship program (OSP) elements and assess differences in implementation in emergency department (ED) and acute inpatient departments. \nDesign: Health administrator survey to identify the number and type of OSP elements that each hospital has implemented. \nSetting: Arizona critical access hospitals (CAHs). \nParticipants: ED and acute inpatient department heads at 17 Arizona CAHs (total of 34 assessments). \nMain outcome measures: Implementation of 11 OSP elements, by department (ED vs inpatient) and prevention orientation (primary vs tertiary). \nResults: The percentage of implemented elements ranged from 35 to 94 percent in EDs and 24 to 88 percent in acute care departments. Reviewing the prescription drug monitoring program database and offering alternatives to opioids were the most frequently implemented. Assessing opioid use disorder (OUD) and prescribing naloxone were among the least. The number of implemented elements tended to be uniform across departments. We found that CAHs implemented, on average, 67 percent of elements that prevent unnecessary opioid use and 54 percent of elements that treat OUD. \nConclusions: Some OSP elements were in place in nearly every Arizona CAH, while others were present in only a quarter or a third of hospitals. To improve, more attention is needed to define and standardize OSPs. Equal priority should be given to preventing unnecessary opioid initiation and treating opioid misuse or OUD, as well as quality control strategies that provide an opportunity for continuous improvement. \n ","PeriodicalId":16601,"journal":{"name":"Journal of opioid management","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of opioid management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jom.0842","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to examine rural hospitals' status in implementing opioid stewardship program (OSP) elements and assess differences in implementation in emergency department (ED) and acute inpatient departments. Design: Health administrator survey to identify the number and type of OSP elements that each hospital has implemented. Setting: Arizona critical access hospitals (CAHs). Participants: ED and acute inpatient department heads at 17 Arizona CAHs (total of 34 assessments). Main outcome measures: Implementation of 11 OSP elements, by department (ED vs inpatient) and prevention orientation (primary vs tertiary). Results: The percentage of implemented elements ranged from 35 to 94 percent in EDs and 24 to 88 percent in acute care departments. Reviewing the prescription drug monitoring program database and offering alternatives to opioids were the most frequently implemented. Assessing opioid use disorder (OUD) and prescribing naloxone were among the least. The number of implemented elements tended to be uniform across departments. We found that CAHs implemented, on average, 67 percent of elements that prevent unnecessary opioid use and 54 percent of elements that treat OUD. Conclusions: Some OSP elements were in place in nearly every Arizona CAH, while others were present in only a quarter or a third of hospitals. To improve, more attention is needed to define and standardize OSPs. Equal priority should be given to preventing unnecessary opioid initiation and treating opioid misuse or OUD, as well as quality control strategies that provide an opportunity for continuous improvement.  
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在亚利桑那州的农村医院和关键通道医院实施阿片类药物管理计划
研究目的本研究旨在考察乡镇医院实施阿片类药物监管计划(OSP)要素的情况,并评估急诊科(ED)和急诊住院部在实施方面的差异。设计:对卫生管理人员进行调查,以确定每家医院已实施的 OSP 要素的数量和类型。背景:亚利桑那州的重症监护医院(Arizona critical access hospitals):亚利桑那州重症医院 (CAH)。参与者:亚利桑那州亚利桑那州 17 家 CAH 的急诊室和急诊住院部负责人(共 34 项评估)。主要结果测量:按科室(急诊科与住院部)和预防方向(一级预防与三级预防)划分的 11 个 OSP 要素的实施情况。结果:在急诊室,已实施要素的百分比从 35% 到 94%不等,在急诊科,从 24% 到 88%不等。审查处方药监测计划数据库和提供阿片类药物替代品是最常实施的方法。而评估阿片类药物使用障碍 (OUD) 和开具纳洛酮处方则最少。各部门实施的要素数量趋于一致。我们发现,CAHs 平均实施了 67% 的预防不必要阿片类药物使用要素和 54% 的治疗 OUD 要素。结论:亚利桑那州几乎每家 CAH 都实施了一些 OSP 要素,而其他要素仅在四分之一或三分之一的医院中存在。为了改进工作,需要更加关注 OSP 的定义和标准化。预防不必要的阿片类药物使用和治疗阿片类药物滥用或 OUD 以及提供持续改进机会的质量控制策略应得到同等重视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of opioid management
Journal of opioid management Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Journal of Opioid Management deals with all aspects of opioids. From basic science, pre-clinical, clinical, abuse, compliance and addiction medicine, the journal provides and unbiased forum for researchers and clinicians to explore and manage the complexities of opioid prescription.
期刊最新文献
A pilot study to examine the opioid prescribing practices of medical residents. Buprenorphine: An anesthesia-centric review. Initial dose of tapentadol and concomitant use of duloxetine are associated with delirium occurring after initiation of tapentadol therapy in cancer patients. Insurance coverage and consistent pricing is needed for over-the-counter naloxone. Naloxone coprescribing best practice advisory for patients at high risk for opioid-related adverse events.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1