Cited by 8Opioid Use Disorder TreatmentPain Management and Opioid UsePharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Prescribing Patterns and Use of Risk-Reduction Tools After Implementing an Opioid-Prescribing Protocol

Open access
Breeden, Matthew A., Jacobs, Christine K., Witthaus, Matthew, Salas, Joanne, Everard, Kelly M., Penton, Eric, Scherrer, Jeffrey F.·2020·The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

Abstract

Background: The literature on results from primary care–based opioid-prescribing protocols is small and results have been mixed. To advance this field, we evaluated whether opioid prescribing changed after a comprehensive protocol was implemented and whether change was associated with the number and type of risk reduction tools adopted. Methods: Electronic medical record data were obtained for 2607 patients. Demographics, Patient Health Questionnaire–9 scores, body mass index, and utilization levels of protocol elements were measured for 24 months prior and 18 months post implementation of an opioid-prescribing protocol within a federally qualified health center. χ2 and t-tests were computed to estimate change in opioid prescribing, morphine-equivalent dose, comedication prescribing, and number and type of protocol elements utilized. Results: The opioid protocol was associated with an increase in urine drug screens from 18.3% to 26.8% from pre to postimplementation (P < .0001). There was no significant increase in opioid treatment agreements. Tramadol (21.4% to 16.8%, P = .0006) and antidepressant (56.0% to 51.6%, P = .012) prescribing significantly decreased. Total opioid prescriptions and maximum morphine-equivalent doses were similar from pre to postimplementation. Protocol elements were more often used when patients had a higher opioid dose and were receiving benzodiazepines. Conclusions: Implementing a multi-faceted opioid-prescribing protocol was not associated with change in number or dose of opioid prescriptions but was associated with greater use of urine drug screens, and risk reduction tools were used more often in high-risk patients. Implementation research is needed to identify barriers to maximizing adherence to opioid protocols.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3122/jabfm.2020.01.190247

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior studies have shown that neither opioid risk reduction tools nor cognitive behavioral therapy reduce the use of opioid medications.

    “Prior studies have shown that neither opioid risk reduction tools nor cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) will reduce the use of opioid medications.”

    From Decision Support and Behavioral Health for Reducing High-Dose Opioids in Comorbid Chronic Pain, Depression and Anxiety: Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Abstract reports that this study's multifaceted opioid-prescribing protocol was not associated with a change in the number or dose of opioid prescriptions. That supports the risk-reduction portion only in this specific setting: it does not establish that risk-reduction tools generally cannot reduce opioid use. The paper does not address cognitive behavioral therapy, and it also describes prior studies in which risk-reduction strategies were associated with dose reduction or discontinuation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Protocol elements of an opioid-prescribing risk reduction tool were most often used in patients with higher opioid dosage and co-prescriptions for benzodiazepines.

    “Breeden etal. reported in a study of an opioid-prescribing risk reduction tool that protocol elements were most often used in patients with higher opioid dosage and co-prescriptions for benzodiazepines.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Breeden, M. A., Jacobs, C. K., Witthaus, M., Salas, J., Everard, K. M., Penton, E., & Scherrer, J. F.
Affiliations
Saint Louis University (US)
Venue
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Published
2020-01
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
27-33
ISSN
  • 1557-2625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-7118
OpenAlex
W3000520695
Cited by
8
References
20
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
opioid prescribing, prescribing protocols, urine drug testing, morphine milligram equivalents, tramadol, antidepressant prescribing, benzodiazepines, federally qualified health centers, primary care, protocol adherence
MeSH terms
Adult, Analgesics, Opioid, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Opioid-Related Disorders, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Risk Assessment, Chronic Pain, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review