Search

Abstract Objectives To examine racial and ethnic disparities in postoperative opioid prescribing. Data sources Electronic health records (EHR) data across 24 hospitals from a healthcare delivery system in Northern California from January 1, 2015 to February 2, 2020 (study period). Study design Cross-sectional, secondary data analyses were conducted to examine differences by race and ethnicity in opioid prescribing, measured as morphine milligram equivalents (MME), among patients who underwent select, but commonly performed, surgical procedures. Linear regression models included adjustment for factors that would likely influence prescribing decisions and race and ethnicity-specific propensity weights. Opioid prescribing, overall and by race and ethnicity, was also compared to postoperative opioid guidelines. Data extraction Data were extracted from the EHR on adult patients undergoing a procedure during the study period, discharged to home with an opioid prescription. Principal findings Among 61,564 patients, on adjusted regression analysis, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients received prescriptions with higher mean MME than non-Hispanic white (NHW) patients (+ 6.4% [95% confidence interval: 4.4%, 8.3%]), whereas Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian patients received lower mean MME (-4.2% [-5.1%, -3.2%] and − 3.6% [-4.8%, -2.3%], respectively). Nevertheless, 72.8% of all patients received prescriptions above guidelines, ranging from 71.0 to 80.3% by race and ethnicity. Disparities in prescribing were eliminated among Hispanic and NHB patients versus NHW patients when prescriptions were written within guideline recommendations. Conclusions Racial and ethnic disparities in opioid prescribing exist in the postoperative setting, yet all groups received prescriptions above guideline recommendations. Policies encouraging guideline-based prescribing may reduce disparities and overall excess prescribing.

The COVID-19 pandemic caused tremendous upheaval in schooling. In addition to devasting effects on students, these disruptions had consequences for researchers conducting studies on education programs and policies. Given the likelihood of future large-scale disruptions, it is important for researchers to plan resilient studies and think critically about adaptations when such turbulence arises. In this article, we utilize qualitative analysis of interviews with research study leaders to illuminate practical and methodological challenges, as well as promising practices that arose during the pandemic period. We find that researchers made pivots to address practical challenges and protect the feasibility of their studies. We also find that researchers took precautions, where possible, to understand and bolster internal validity. However, these pivots frequently surfaced additional threats to construct and external validity. We conclude with recommendations for future studies conducted in times of prolonged unplanned school closures or other large-scale disruptions.

Introduction Surgical patients are commonly prescribed more opioids at discharge than needed to manage their postoperative pain. These excess opioids increase the risks of new persistent opioid use, opioid-induced ventilatory impairment and opioid diversion. This study tests the effectiveness of two behavioural nudges, one based on peer behaviour and one based on best practice guidelines, in reducing excessive postoperative opioid prescriptions.Methods and analysis The study will be conducted at 19 hospitals within a large healthcare delivery system in northern California, USA. Three surgical specialties (general surgery, orthopaedic surgery and obstetric/gynaecological surgery) at each hospital will be randomised either to a control group or to one of two active intervention arms. One intervention is grounded in the theory of injunctive norms, and provides feedback to surgeons on their postoperative opioid prescribing relative to prescribing guidelines endorsed by their institution. The other intervention draws from the theory of descriptive norms, and provides feedback similar to the first intervention but using peers’ behaviour rather than guidelines as the benchmark for the surgeon’s prescribing behaviour. The interventions will be delivered by a monthly email. Both interventions will be active for twelve months. The effects of each intervention relative to the control group and to each other will be tested using a four-level hierarchical model adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing.Ethics and dissemination Using behavioural nudges rather than rigid policy changes allows us to target excessive prescribing without preventing clinicians from using their clinical judgement to address patient pain. All study activities have been approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee (ID 2018-0988). Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and social media accounts.Trial registration number NCT05070338.