Effects of a Revision to the Standard Admission Order Set on Laxative Prescribing for Opioid-Induced Constipation.

Shila Pandey, Jessica I Goldberg, Kelly Haviland
{"title":"Effects of a Revision to the Standard Admission Order Set on Laxative Prescribing for Opioid-Induced Constipation.","authors":"Shila Pandey, Jessica I Goldberg, Kelly Haviland","doi":"10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.8.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is highly prevalent in patients with cancer-related pain on opioid analgesics and has negative consequences on physical and psychological well-being and quality of life. Oncology clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives for the prevention and management of opioid-induced constipation, not stool softeners such as docusate sodium. Prescribing practices continue to fall behind these recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This quality improvement project revised the laxative options available in the standard admission order set in the electronic medical record. Specifically, docusate sodium was removed and replaced with senna and polyethylene glycol 3350.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,742 patient admissions preintervention were compared to 2,752 admissions postintervention. The number of orders for docusate (<i>p</i> < .001) and docusate-senna (<i>p</i> = .002) orders decreased significantly after the intervention, in addition to the number of OIC diagnoses (<i>p</i> < .001). However, the number of orders for polyethylene glycol (<i>p</i> = .559), senna (<i>p</i> = .582), other laxatives (<i>p</i> = .245), or functional bowel disorder medications (<i>p</i> = .533) did not change significantly. No significant differences were observed in the frequency of laxative orders placed within 24 hours of an opioid order, number of laxatives prescribed at discharge, admissions related to bowel-related complications, or length of stay.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Interventions utilizing the electronic medical record can facilitate evidence-based management of OIC. Development of clinical practice guidelines and tailoring these interventions further is needed to adapt this approach at other institutions and sustain practice change.</p>","PeriodicalId":94110,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11715462/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.8.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is highly prevalent in patients with cancer-related pain on opioid analgesics and has negative consequences on physical and psychological well-being and quality of life. Oncology clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of osmotic and stimulant laxatives for the prevention and management of opioid-induced constipation, not stool softeners such as docusate sodium. Prescribing practices continue to fall behind these recommendations.

Methods: This quality improvement project revised the laxative options available in the standard admission order set in the electronic medical record. Specifically, docusate sodium was removed and replaced with senna and polyethylene glycol 3350.

Results: A total of 2,742 patient admissions preintervention were compared to 2,752 admissions postintervention. The number of orders for docusate (p < .001) and docusate-senna (p = .002) orders decreased significantly after the intervention, in addition to the number of OIC diagnoses (p < .001). However, the number of orders for polyethylene glycol (p = .559), senna (p = .582), other laxatives (p = .245), or functional bowel disorder medications (p = .533) did not change significantly. No significant differences were observed in the frequency of laxative orders placed within 24 hours of an opioid order, number of laxatives prescribed at discharge, admissions related to bowel-related complications, or length of stay.

Conclusions: Interventions utilizing the electronic medical record can facilitate evidence-based management of OIC. Development of clinical practice guidelines and tailoring these interventions further is needed to adapt this approach at other institutions and sustain practice change.

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
修订标准入院顺序对阿片类药物引起的便秘的通便处方的影响。
目的:阿片类药物引起的便秘(OIC)在阿片类镇痛药物引起的癌症相关疼痛患者中非常普遍,并对身心健康和生活质量产生负面影响。肿瘤学临床实践指南建议使用渗透性和刺激性泻药来预防和管理阿片类药物引起的便秘,而不是大便软化剂,如docusate钠。处方实践仍然落后于这些建议。方法:本质量改进项目修订了电子病历中标准住院医嘱中可选择的通便药。具体地说,去掉docusate钠,代之以番泻叶和聚乙二醇3350。结果:干预前入院患者2742例,干预后入院患者2752例。干预后,除了OIC诊断的数量(p < 0.001)外,文档订单数量(p < 0.001)和文档-senna订单数量(p = 0.002)显著减少。然而,聚乙二醇(p = .559)、番泻草(p = .582)、其他泻药(p = .245)或功能性肠紊乱药物(p = .533)的订单数量没有显著变化。在阿片类药物下单后24小时内开泻药的频率、出院时开泻药的数量、与肠道相关并发症相关的入院情况或住院时间方面,没有观察到显著差异。结论:利用电子病历的干预措施可以促进OIC的循证管理。需要制定临床实践指南并进一步调整这些干预措施,以便在其他机构采用这种方法并维持实践变化。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Improving Depression Screening in Adult Patients With Cancer. Safety in Subsequent Lines of Therapy in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma. Effects of a Revision to the Standard Admission Order Set on Laxative Prescribing for Opioid-Induced Constipation. Evaluating the Impact of a Clinical Pharmacist in Patients Receiving New Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: Analysis of a Pilot Study. Sharing Genomic Tumor Sequencing Results With Patients: Experiences of Advanced Practice Oncology Providers.
×
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