[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.175.201.14. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Review
October 2018

Interventions for Postsurgical Opioid Prescribing: A Systematic Review

Author Affiliations
  • 1Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
  • 2Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
JAMA Surg. 2018;153(10):948-954. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.2730
Key Points

Question  What interventions for improving stewardship in postsurgical opioid prescribing are effective?

Findings  In this systematic review, interventions operating at a physician or organizational level (eg, work flow changes) have shown positive results, while interventions at the patient level (eg, patient education) have shown mixed results. Monitoring for negative consequences was key across the studies evaluated.

Meaning  As attention on the opioid epidemic continues to rise, practices wishing to implement changes in postsurgical prescribing can refer to this review to develop an evidence-based intervention.

Abstract

Importance  Over the past 20 years, opioid misuse and opioid addiction have risen to epidemic proportions in the United States. One-third of adults receiving long-term opioid therapy report that their first opioid prescription came from a surgeon, indicating that postsurgical prescribing is an important point of intervention in the opioid epidemic. Such interventions differ from historical interventions on prescribing in that they must be closely monitored to ensure pain continues to be adequately controlled after surgical procedures. As evidence on nonopioid-based pain control grows, a key question is how to implement practice change in postsurgical discharge prescribing.

Objective  To examine interventions associated with changing opioid prescription practices on surgical discharge.

Evidence Review  Studies published after 2000 that included interventions that aimed at postsurgical opiate stewardship and evaluated outcomes were included. PubMed and Embase were searched through March 2018 for relevant articles, with additional articles retrieved based on citations in articles retrieved in the initial search. Quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, and quality scores were reconciled through discussion and mutual agreement.

Findings  Eight studies met inclusion criteria, of which 3 were preintervention and postintervention comparison studies, 3 were controlled clinical studies, 1 was a time-series study, and 1 compared postintervention results with a predetermined baseline. Interventions done at the organization level, including changes to electronic health records order sets and workflow, showed clear positive results. Additionally, 2 studies that centered on developing guidelines based on actual patient opioid use and disseminating these guidelines to clinicians reported reductions up to 53% in the quantity prescribed. No increases in emergency department visits or refill requests were reported in studies measuring these outcomes. However, 1 study focused on reducing the number of children who were prescribed codeine found via check-in telephone calls that 13 of 240 patients (5.4%) had inadequately controlled pain.

Conclusions and Relevance  The studies reviewed provide evidence that clinician-mediated and organizational-level interventions are powerful tools in creating change in postsurgical opioid prescribing. This summary highlights paucity of high-quality studies that provide clear evidence on the most effective intervention at reducing postoperative opioid prescribing.

Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    ×