Emergency department opioid prescribing trends among provider types: an analysis of the NHAMCS, 2019-2021.

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Internal and Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-31 DOI:10.1007/s11739-025-03923-5
Carrson French, Jace Jackson, Zach Monahan, Kelly Murray, Micah Hartwell
{"title":"Emergency department opioid prescribing trends among provider types: an analysis of the NHAMCS, 2019-2021.","authors":"Carrson French, Jace Jackson, Zach Monahan, Kelly Murray, Micah Hartwell","doi":"10.1007/s11739-025-03923-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite efforts to mitigate high opioid prescription frequencies, previous research showed minimal change within emergency departments (ED) in the United States, and a few studies investigate prescription provider types. Thus, our primary objective was to assess opioid prescribing rates by differing healthcare team members using data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). Using the 2019-2021 NHAMCS, we calculated the overall opioid prescription rate during ED visits by provider type. Next, we estimated opioid prescription rates by provider type annually and determined differences by year using design-based X<sup>2</sup> tests and regression models. From 2019 through 2021, 7428 of 50,548 visits involved opioids, representing 15.62% of all ED visits. During this timeframe, 16.59% of total encounters with opioid prescriptions were among attending/consulting physicians. This was followed by physician assistants (13.91%), nurse practitioners (10.67%), and residents (7.28%). Compared to 2019, opioid prescribing rates showed no significant changes; however, resident physicians showed a significant decrease, and RNs showed a significant increase. From our analysis, opioid prescribing rates in the ED were highest among attending/consulting physicians, and rates among physician assistants and nurse practitioners were higher than 10%. Resident physicians had a significant decrease in opioid prescriptions, while RNs had an increase-likely due to new laws enacted during this timeframe. Removing barriers to alternative pain management for acute and long-term care may lessen rates of opioid prescriptions-including patient and provider training, physical therapists inclusion, and osteopathic manipulative therapy incorporation.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"213-217"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-03923-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite efforts to mitigate high opioid prescription frequencies, previous research showed minimal change within emergency departments (ED) in the United States, and a few studies investigate prescription provider types. Thus, our primary objective was to assess opioid prescribing rates by differing healthcare team members using data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). Using the 2019-2021 NHAMCS, we calculated the overall opioid prescription rate during ED visits by provider type. Next, we estimated opioid prescription rates by provider type annually and determined differences by year using design-based X2 tests and regression models. From 2019 through 2021, 7428 of 50,548 visits involved opioids, representing 15.62% of all ED visits. During this timeframe, 16.59% of total encounters with opioid prescriptions were among attending/consulting physicians. This was followed by physician assistants (13.91%), nurse practitioners (10.67%), and residents (7.28%). Compared to 2019, opioid prescribing rates showed no significant changes; however, resident physicians showed a significant decrease, and RNs showed a significant increase. From our analysis, opioid prescribing rates in the ED were highest among attending/consulting physicians, and rates among physician assistants and nurse practitioners were higher than 10%. Resident physicians had a significant decrease in opioid prescriptions, while RNs had an increase-likely due to new laws enacted during this timeframe. Removing barriers to alternative pain management for acute and long-term care may lessen rates of opioid prescriptions-including patient and provider training, physical therapists inclusion, and osteopathic manipulative therapy incorporation.

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
急诊部门阿片类药物处方趋势的提供者类型:分析NHAMCS, 2019-2021。
尽管努力降低阿片类药物的高处方频率,但之前的研究表明,美国急诊科(ED)的变化很小,一些研究调查了处方提供者的类型。因此,我们的主要目标是利用国家医院门诊医疗调查(NHAMCS)的数据,评估不同医疗团队成员的阿片类药物处方率。使用2019-2021年NHAMCS,我们按提供者类型计算了急诊科就诊期间阿片类药物的总体处方率。接下来,我们每年按提供者类型估计阿片类药物处方率,并使用基于设计的X2检验和回归模型确定每年的差异。从2019年到2021年,50,548次就诊中有7428次涉及阿片类药物,占所有急诊就诊的15.62%。在此期间,16.59%的阿片类药物处方是在主治医生/咨询医生中遇到的。其次是医师助理(13.91%)、执业护士(10.67%)和住院医师(7.28%)。与2019年相比,阿片类药物处方率没有显著变化;然而,住院医师数量明显减少,注册护士数量明显增加。从我们的分析来看,急诊科的阿片类药物处方率在主治医生/咨询医生中最高,医师助理和执业护士的处方率高于10%。住院医生的阿片类药物处方显著减少,而注册护士的阿片类药物处方增加,这可能是由于在这段时间内颁布了新的法律。消除急性和长期护理替代疼痛管理的障碍可能会减少阿片类药物处方的发生率,包括患者和提供者培训,物理治疗师纳入和整骨疗法的手法治疗。
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
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
期刊最新文献
Influence of patient sex on clinical decision-making in acute heart failure: a risk-adjusted analysis using the MEESSI-AHF score. Thrombotic microangiopathy with features of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura in a patient with Vibrio parahaemolyticus bacteremia: a rare case report. Correction to: Anticoagulation in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The impact of body mass index on treatment response to high-dose dexamethasone in adult primary immune thrombocytopenia patients: A two-center retrospective study. Management of subjects with type 2 diabetes hospitalized in internal medicine units: a cluster-randomized, multicenter study before and after an educational program.
×
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:604180095
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