Statewide cross-sectional survey of emergency departments\u27 adoption and implementation of the Ohio opioid prescribing guidelines and opioid prescribing practices

Study objective To evaluate the implementation of the Ohio Emergency and Acute Care Facility Opioids and Other Controlled Substances Prescribing Guidelines and their perceived impact on local policies and practice. Methods The study design was a cross-sectional survey of emergency department (ED) medical directors, or appropriate person identified by the hospital, perception of the impact of the Ohio ED Opioid Prescribing Guidelines on their departments practice. All hospitals with an ED in Ohio were contacted throughout October and November 2016. Distribution followed Dillman’s Tailored Design Method, augmented with telephone recruitment. Hospital chief executive officers were contacted when necessary to encourage ED participation. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the impact of opioid prescribing policies on prescribing practices. Results A 92% response rate was obtained (150/163 EDs). In total, 112 (75%) of the respondents stated that their ED has an opioid prescribing policy, is adopting one or is implementing prescribing guidelines without a specific policy. Of these 112 EDs, 81 (72%) based their policy on the Ohio ED Opioid Prescribing Guidelines. The majority of respondents strongly agreed/agreed that the prescribing guidelines have increased the use of the prescription drug monitoring programme (86%) and have reduced inappropriate opioid prescribing (71%). Conclusion This study showed that the Ohio ED Opioid Prescribing Guidelines have been widely disseminated and that the majority of EDs in Ohio are using them to develop local policies. The majority of respondents believed that the Ohio opioid prescribing guidelines reduced inappropriate opioid prescribing. However, prescribing practices still varied greatly between EDs

Statewide cross-sectional survey of emergency departments’ adoption and implementation of the Ohio opioid prescribing guidelines and opioid prescribing practices

study objective: To evaluate the implementation of the Ohio Emergency and Acute Care Facility Opioids and Other Controlled Substances Prescribing Guidelines and their perceived impact on local policies and practice. Methods: The study design was a cross-sectional survey of emergency department (ED) medical directors, or appropriate person identified by the hospital, perception of the impact of the Ohio ED Opioid Prescribing Guidelines on their departments practice. All hospitals with an ED in Ohio were contacted throughout October and November 2016. Distribution followed Dillman’s Tailored Design Method, augmented with telephone recruitment. Hospital chief executive officers were contacted when necessary to encourage ED participation. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the impact of opioid prescribing policies on prescribing practices. results: A 92% response rate was obtained (150/163 EDs). In total, 112 (75%) of the respondents stated that their ED has an opioid prescribing policy, is adopting one or is implementing prescribing guidelines without a specific policy. Of these 112 EDs, 81 (72%) based their policy on the Ohio ED Opioid Prescribing Guidelines. The majority of respondents strongly agreed/agreed that the prescribing guidelines have increased the use of the prescription drug monitoring programme (86%) and have reduced inappropriate opioid prescribing (71%). Conclusion: This study showed that the Ohio ED Opioid Prescribing Guidelines have been widely disseminated and that the majority of EDs in Ohio are using them to develop local policies. The majority of respondents believed that the Ohio opioid prescribing guidelines reduced inappropriate opioid prescribing. However, prescribing practices still varied greatly between EDs

Emergency Physicians\u27 Perception of Barriers and Facilitators for Adopting an Opioid Prescribing Guideline in Ohio: A Qualitative Interview Study

Background Ohio has the fifth highest rate of prescription opioid overdose deaths in the United States. One strategy implemented to address this concern is a state-wide opioid prescribing guideline in the emergency department (ED). Objective Our aim was to explore emergency physicians’ perceptions on barriers and strategies for the Ohio ED opioid prescribing guideline. Methods Semi-structured interviews with emergency physicians in Ohio were conducted from October to December 2016. Emergency physicians were recruited through the American College of Emergency Physicians Ohio State Chapter. The interview guide explored issues related to the implementation of the guidelines. Interview data were transcribed and thematically analyzed and coded using a scheme of inductively determined labels. Results In total, we conducted 20 interviews. Of these, 11 were also the ED medical director at their institution. Main themes we identified were: 1) increased organizational responsibility, 2) improved prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) integration, 3) concerns regarding patient satisfaction scores, and 4) increased patient involvement. In addition, some physicians wanted the guidelines to contain more clinical information and be worded more strongly against opioid prescribing. Emergency physicians felt patient satisfaction scores were perceived to negatively impact opioid prescribing guidelines, as they may encourage physicians to prescribe opioids. Furthermore, some participants reported that this is compounded if the emergency physicians’ income was linked to their patient satisfaction score. Conclusions Emergency physicians interviewed generally supported the state-wide opioid prescribing guideline but felt hospitals needed to take additional organizational responsibility for addressing inappropriate opioid prescribing

The impact of the national stay-at-home order on emergency department visits for suspected opioid overdose during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

•Declaration of the COVID-19 national public health emergency impacted emergency department encounters for opioid overdose.•An immediate decline in ED rates for opioid overdose occurred after March 14, 2020 in New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio.•Kentucky and Ohio saw a significant increase in opioid overdose after the emergency declaration.•The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on encounters for suspected opioid overdose was highly heterogeneous across the 4 states. Although national syndromic surveillance data reported declines in emergency department (ED) visits after the declaration of the national stay-at-home order for COVID-19, little is known whether these declines were observed for suspected opioid overdose. This interrupted time series study used syndromic surveillance data from four states participating in the HEALing Communities Study: Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. All ED encounters for suspected opioid overdose (n = 48,301) occurring during the first 31 weeks of 2020 were included. We examined the impact of the national public health emergency for COVID-19 (declared on March 14, 2020) on trends in ED encounters for suspected opioid overdose. Three of four states (Massachusetts, New York and Ohio) experienced a statistically significant immediate decline in the rate of ED encounters for suspected opioid overdose (per 100,000) after the nationwide public health emergency declaration (MA: -0.99; 95 % CI: -1.75, -0.24; NY: -0.10; 95 % CI, -0.20, 0.0; OH: -0.33, 95 % CI: -0.58, -0.07). After this date, Ohio and Kentucky experienced a sustained rate of increase for a 13-week period. New York experienced a decrease in the rate of ED encounters for a 10-week period, after which the rate began to increase. In Massachusetts after a significant immediate decline in the rate of ED encounters, there was no significant difference in the rate of change for a 6-week period, followed by an immediate increase in the ED rate to higher than pre-COVID levels. The heterogeneity in the trends in ED encounters between the four sites show that the national stay-at-home order had a differential impact on opioid overdose ED presentation in each state

Impact of the Communities That HEAL Intervention on Buprenorphine-Waivered Practitioners and Buprenorphine Prescribing: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the HCS Randomized Clinical Trial

Buprenorphine significantly reduces opioid-related overdose mortality. From 2002 to 2022, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA 2000) required qualified practitioners to receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Agency to prescribe buprenorphine for treatment of opioid use disorder. During this period, waiver uptake among practitioners was modest; subsequent changes need to be examined. To determine whether the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention increased the rate of practitioners with DATA 2000 waivers and buprenorphine prescribing. This prespecified secondary analysis of the HEALing Communities Study, a multisite, 2-arm, parallel, community-level, cluster randomized, open, wait-list-controlled comparison clinical trial was designed to assess the effectiveness of the CTH intervention and was conducted between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2023, in 67 communities in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, accounting for approximately 8.2 million adults. The participants in this trial were communities consisting of counties (n = 48) and municipalities (n = 19). Trial arm randomization was conducted using a covariate constrained randomization procedure stratified by state. Each state was balanced by community characteristics including urban/rural classification, fatal opioid overdose rate, and community population. Thirty-four communities were randomized to the intervention and 33 to wait-list control arms. Data analysis was conducted between March 20 and September 29, 2023, with a focus on the comparison period from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. Waiver trainings and other educational trainings were offered or supported by the HEALing Communities Study research sites in each state to help build practitioner capacity. The rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver (overall, and stratified by 30-, 100-, and 275-patient limits) per 100 000 adult residents aged 18 years or older during July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022, were compared between the intervention and wait-list control communities. The rate of buprenorphine prescribing among those waivered practitioners was also compared between the intervention and wait-list control communities. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed. A total of 8 166 963 individuals aged 18 years or older were residents of the 67 communities studied. There was no evidence of an effect of the CTH intervention on the adjusted rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver (adjusted relative rate [ARR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.14) or the adjusted rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver who actively prescribed buprenorphine (ARR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.10). In this randomized clinical trial, the CTH intervention was not associated with increases in the rate of practitioners with a DATA 2000 waiver or buprenorphine prescribing among those waivered practitioners. Supporting practitioners to prescribe buprenorphine remains a critical yet challenging step in the continuum of care to treat opioid use disorder. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04111939