Accuracy of patient-reported opioid use to verified prescription fills before and after surgery.

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1136/rapm-2024-106090
Siddartha Simha, Ralph Lamonge, Jennifer F Waljee, Yen-Ling Lai, Vidhya Gunaseelan, Michael J Englesbe, Chad M Brummett, Mark C Bicket
{"title":"Accuracy of patient-reported opioid use to verified prescription fills before and after surgery.","authors":"Siddartha Simha, Ralph Lamonge, Jennifer F Waljee, Yen-Ling Lai, Vidhya Gunaseelan, Michael J Englesbe, Chad M Brummett, Mark C Bicket","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2024-106090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the correlation of patient-reported opioid use as compared to fills verified in a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) before and after surgery.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Correctly determining prescription opioid use before and after surgery is critical to develop effective policies and care pathways for opioid stewardship perioperatively. While many surgical teams, health systems, and patient registries rely on patients to report their use of prescription opioids, the accuracy of this reporting is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patient-reported data on opioid use from 12 225 adult patients who underwent surgical procedures between 1 January 2018 and 31 October 2019 across 70 participating hospitals in Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative were compared to the reference standard of the state PDMP. The primary outcome was patient-reported opioid fill in the 30 days after surgery compared to PDMP-verified prescription fill, and the secondary outcomes were patient-reported use in the 30-day and 1-year period prior to surgery compared to PDMP data. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and other predictive values were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 12 225 patients (58% women, 19.2% non-white, mean (SD) age 15.6 (16.3)), the patient report had acceptable accuracy (83.2%, 95% CI 82.5% to 83.9%) and sensitivity (91.2%, 95% CI 90.6% to 91.8%) compared to 30-day postoperative opioid fills in the PDMP, while less than half of patients without PDMP-verified fills accurately reported not filling an opioid prescription (specificity 43.1%, 95% CI 40.9% to 45.3%). For 30-day and 1-year periods before surgery, patient-reported opioid use had acceptable accuracy (86.8% (95% CI 86.1% to 87.4%) and 77.9% (95% CI 77.2% to 78.7%), respectively) and specificity (90.0% (95% CI 89.4% to 90.5%) and 90.8% (95% CI 90.2% to 91.4%), respectively), while only slightly above half of patients with PDMP-verified opioid fills reported opioid use before surgery (sensitivity 58.9% (95% CI 56.2% to 61.7%) and 47.3% (95% CI 45.7% to 49.0%), respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For perioperative opioid fills and use, the patient report appears to align with PDMP data. The patient report may also complement PDMP data by identifying persons who may report opioid prescription fills or use without corresponding data in the PDMP, especially in the postoperative period.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2024-106090","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine the correlation of patient-reported opioid use as compared to fills verified in a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) before and after surgery.

Background: Correctly determining prescription opioid use before and after surgery is critical to develop effective policies and care pathways for opioid stewardship perioperatively. While many surgical teams, health systems, and patient registries rely on patients to report their use of prescription opioids, the accuracy of this reporting is unclear.

Methods: Patient-reported data on opioid use from 12 225 adult patients who underwent surgical procedures between 1 January 2018 and 31 October 2019 across 70 participating hospitals in Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative were compared to the reference standard of the state PDMP. The primary outcome was patient-reported opioid fill in the 30 days after surgery compared to PDMP-verified prescription fill, and the secondary outcomes were patient-reported use in the 30-day and 1-year period prior to surgery compared to PDMP data. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and other predictive values were calculated.

Results: Among 12 225 patients (58% women, 19.2% non-white, mean (SD) age 15.6 (16.3)), the patient report had acceptable accuracy (83.2%, 95% CI 82.5% to 83.9%) and sensitivity (91.2%, 95% CI 90.6% to 91.8%) compared to 30-day postoperative opioid fills in the PDMP, while less than half of patients without PDMP-verified fills accurately reported not filling an opioid prescription (specificity 43.1%, 95% CI 40.9% to 45.3%). For 30-day and 1-year periods before surgery, patient-reported opioid use had acceptable accuracy (86.8% (95% CI 86.1% to 87.4%) and 77.9% (95% CI 77.2% to 78.7%), respectively) and specificity (90.0% (95% CI 89.4% to 90.5%) and 90.8% (95% CI 90.2% to 91.4%), respectively), while only slightly above half of patients with PDMP-verified opioid fills reported opioid use before surgery (sensitivity 58.9% (95% CI 56.2% to 61.7%) and 47.3% (95% CI 45.7% to 49.0%), respectively).

Conclusions: For perioperative opioid fills and use, the patient report appears to align with PDMP data. The patient report may also complement PDMP data by identifying persons who may report opioid prescription fills or use without corresponding data in the PDMP, especially in the postoperative period.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
期刊最新文献
Use of fascial plane blocks for traumatic rib fractures: a scoping review. Accuracy of patient-reported opioid use to verified prescription fills before and after surgery. Impact of epinephrine on ropivacaine pharmacokinetics in TAP blocks: a randomized controlled trial. Cooled radiofrequency ablation provides extended clinical utility in the management of chronic sacroiliac joint pain: 12-month follow-up results from the observational phase of a randomized, multicenter, comparative-effectiveness crossover study. Can a single-shot abdominal wall nerve block for unexpected open surgery be done without specific consent?
×
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