医生自我认知如何影响同伴比较反馈对阿片类药物处方的影响。

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES American Journal of Medical Quality Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000117
Joshua M Liao, Chuxuan Sun, Xiaowei S Yan, Mitesh S Patel, Dylan S Small, William M Isenberg, Howard M Landa, Barbara L Bond, Charles A L Rareshide, Kevin G Volpp, M Kit Delgado, Victor J Lei, Zijun Shen, Amol S Navathe
{"title":"医生自我认知如何影响同伴比较反馈对阿片类药物处方的影响。","authors":"Joshua M Liao,&nbsp;Chuxuan Sun,&nbsp;Xiaowei S Yan,&nbsp;Mitesh S Patel,&nbsp;Dylan S Small,&nbsp;William M Isenberg,&nbsp;Howard M Landa,&nbsp;Barbara L Bond,&nbsp;Charles A L Rareshide,&nbsp;Kevin G Volpp,&nbsp;M Kit Delgado,&nbsp;Victor J Lei,&nbsp;Zijun Shen,&nbsp;Amol S Navathe","doi":"10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Peer comparison feedback is a promising strategy for reducing opioid prescribing and opioid-related harms. Such comparisons may be particularly impactful among underestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as high prescribers relative to their peers. But peer comparisons could also unintentionally increase prescribing among overestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as lower prescribers than peers. The objective of this study was to assess if the impact of peer comparisons varied by clinicians' preexisting opioid prescribing self-perceptions. Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial of peer comparison interventions among emergency department and urgent care clinicians was used. Generalized mixed-effects models were used to assess whether the impact of peer comparisons, alone or combined with individual feedback, varied by underestimating or overestimating prescriber status. Underestimating and overestimating prescribers were defined as those who self-reported relative prescribing amounts that were lower and higher, respectively, than actual relative baseline amounts. The primary outcome was pills per opioid prescription. Among 438 clinicians, 54% (n = 236) provided baseline prescribing self-perceptions and were included in this analysis. Overall, 17% (n = 40) were underestimating prescribers whereas 5% (n = 11) were overestimating prescribers. Underestimating prescribers exhibited a differentially greater decrease in pills per prescription compared to nonunderestimating clinicians when receiving peer comparison feedback (1.7 pills, 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (2.8 pills, 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.8 pills). In contrast, there were no differential changes in pills per prescription for overestimating versus nonoverestimating prescribers after receiving peer comparison (1.5 pills, 95% CI, -0.9 to 3.9 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (3.0 pills, 95% CI, -0.3 to 6.2 pills). Peer comparisons were more impactful among clinicians who underestimated their prescribing compared to peers. By correcting inaccurate self-perceptions, peer comparison feedback can be an effective strategy for influencing opioid prescribing.</p>","PeriodicalId":7539,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Medical Quality","volume":"38 3","pages":"129-136"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Physician Self-Perceptions Affect the Impact of Peer Comparison Feedback on Opioid Prescribing.\",\"authors\":\"Joshua M Liao,&nbsp;Chuxuan Sun,&nbsp;Xiaowei S Yan,&nbsp;Mitesh S Patel,&nbsp;Dylan S Small,&nbsp;William M Isenberg,&nbsp;Howard M Landa,&nbsp;Barbara L Bond,&nbsp;Charles A L Rareshide,&nbsp;Kevin G Volpp,&nbsp;M Kit Delgado,&nbsp;Victor J Lei,&nbsp;Zijun Shen,&nbsp;Amol S Navathe\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Peer comparison feedback is a promising strategy for reducing opioid prescribing and opioid-related harms. Such comparisons may be particularly impactful among underestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as high prescribers relative to their peers. But peer comparisons could also unintentionally increase prescribing among overestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as lower prescribers than peers. The objective of this study was to assess if the impact of peer comparisons varied by clinicians' preexisting opioid prescribing self-perceptions. Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial of peer comparison interventions among emergency department and urgent care clinicians was used. Generalized mixed-effects models were used to assess whether the impact of peer comparisons, alone or combined with individual feedback, varied by underestimating or overestimating prescriber status. Underestimating and overestimating prescribers were defined as those who self-reported relative prescribing amounts that were lower and higher, respectively, than actual relative baseline amounts. The primary outcome was pills per opioid prescription. Among 438 clinicians, 54% (n = 236) provided baseline prescribing self-perceptions and were included in this analysis. Overall, 17% (n = 40) were underestimating prescribers whereas 5% (n = 11) were overestimating prescribers. Underestimating prescribers exhibited a differentially greater decrease in pills per prescription compared to nonunderestimating clinicians when receiving peer comparison feedback (1.7 pills, 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (2.8 pills, 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.8 pills). In contrast, there were no differential changes in pills per prescription for overestimating versus nonoverestimating prescribers after receiving peer comparison (1.5 pills, 95% CI, -0.9 to 3.9 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (3.0 pills, 95% CI, -0.3 to 6.2 pills). Peer comparisons were more impactful among clinicians who underestimated their prescribing compared to peers. By correcting inaccurate self-perceptions, peer comparison feedback can be an effective strategy for influencing opioid prescribing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Medical Quality\",\"volume\":\"38 3\",\"pages\":\"129-136\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Medical Quality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000117\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Medical Quality","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000117","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

同伴比较反馈是减少阿片类药物处方和阿片类药物相关危害的一种有希望的策略。这种比较可能对低估的临床医生特别有影响,因为他们不认为自己是相对于同行的高处方者。但同行比较也可能无意中增加过高估计的临床医生的处方,他们并不认为自己比同行开的少。本研究的目的是评估同伴比较的影响是否因临床医生先前存在的阿片类药物处方自我认知而变化。在急诊科和紧急护理临床医生中进行了同行比较干预的随机试验的亚组分析。使用广义混合效应模型来评估同伴比较的影响,单独或与个人反馈相结合,是否会因低估或高估处方者地位而变化。低估和高估开处方者被定义为那些自我报告的相对处方量分别低于和高于实际相对基线量的人。主要结局是每个阿片类药物处方的药丸数。在438名临床医生中,54% (n = 236)提供了基线处方自我认知,并被纳入本分析。总体而言,17% (n = 40)低估了开处方者,而5% (n = 11)高估了开处方者。当接受同伴比较反馈(1.7片,95% CI, -3.2至-0.2片)或同伴和个人联合反馈(2.8片,95% CI, -4.8至-0.8片)时,低估处方者与未低估的临床医生相比,每份处方的药丸减少幅度更大。相比之下,在接受同伴比较(1.5片,95% CI, -0.9至3.9片)或同伴和个人联合反馈(3.0片,95% CI, -0.3至6.2片)后,高估处方者与非高估处方者的每张处方的药片数量没有差异变化。同行比较在低估处方的临床医生中更有影响力。通过纠正不准确的自我认知,同伴比较反馈可以成为影响阿片类药物处方的有效策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How Physician Self-Perceptions Affect the Impact of Peer Comparison Feedback on Opioid Prescribing.

Peer comparison feedback is a promising strategy for reducing opioid prescribing and opioid-related harms. Such comparisons may be particularly impactful among underestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as high prescribers relative to their peers. But peer comparisons could also unintentionally increase prescribing among overestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as lower prescribers than peers. The objective of this study was to assess if the impact of peer comparisons varied by clinicians' preexisting opioid prescribing self-perceptions. Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial of peer comparison interventions among emergency department and urgent care clinicians was used. Generalized mixed-effects models were used to assess whether the impact of peer comparisons, alone or combined with individual feedback, varied by underestimating or overestimating prescriber status. Underestimating and overestimating prescribers were defined as those who self-reported relative prescribing amounts that were lower and higher, respectively, than actual relative baseline amounts. The primary outcome was pills per opioid prescription. Among 438 clinicians, 54% (n = 236) provided baseline prescribing self-perceptions and were included in this analysis. Overall, 17% (n = 40) were underestimating prescribers whereas 5% (n = 11) were overestimating prescribers. Underestimating prescribers exhibited a differentially greater decrease in pills per prescription compared to nonunderestimating clinicians when receiving peer comparison feedback (1.7 pills, 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (2.8 pills, 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.8 pills). In contrast, there were no differential changes in pills per prescription for overestimating versus nonoverestimating prescribers after receiving peer comparison (1.5 pills, 95% CI, -0.9 to 3.9 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (3.0 pills, 95% CI, -0.3 to 6.2 pills). Peer comparisons were more impactful among clinicians who underestimated their prescribing compared to peers. By correcting inaccurate self-perceptions, peer comparison feedback can be an effective strategy for influencing opioid prescribing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
124
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Medical Quality (AJMQ) is focused on keeping readers informed of the resources, processes, and perspectives contributing to quality health care services. This peer-reviewed journal presents a forum for the exchange of ideas, strategies, and methods in improving the delivery and management of health care.
期刊最新文献
Standardized Management of Sickle Cell Disease Patients and the Effects on Care Utilization and Costs Primary Care Provider and Staff Wellness and Burnout Levels and Suggestions to Improve Wellness: Analysis of Survey Findings Preparation of Patients for Central Venous Catheter Care in the Home: Perspectives From Health Care Personnel Handoff Education Interventions: A Scoping Review Focused on Sustaining Improvements A Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome (PACS) Clinic in Rural New England
×
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