Search

Objective: To assess prescribing and refilling trends of narcotics in postoperative urology patients at our institution. Although the opioid epidemic remains a public health threat, no series has assessed prescribing patterns across urologic surgery disciplines following discharge., Methods: All urologic surgeries were retrospectively reviewed from May 2017-April 2018. Demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative pain management strategies were analyzed. Narcotics usage following surgery were reported in total morphine equivalents (TME). Opioid refill rate was characterized by medical specialty and stratified by urologic discipline., Results: 817 cases were reviewed. Mean age and TME at discharge was 57±15.6 years and 35.43±19.5 mg, respectively. 13.6% (mean age 55±15.9) received a narcotic refill following discharge (mean TME/refill 37.7±28.9 mg). A higher proportion of patients with a pre-operative opioid prescription received a refill compared to opioid naïve patients (38.2% vs 21.6%, P < .01). Refill rate did not differ between urologic subspecialties (P = .3). Urologists were only responsible for 20.4% of all refills filled, despite all patients continuing follow-up with their surgeon. Procedures with the highest rates of post-operative refills were in oncology, male reconstruction/trauma and endourology. Patients with a history of chronic pain (OR 1.9, CI 1.1-3.3) preoperative narcotic prescription (OR 1.6, CI 1.0-2.6), and higher ASA score (OR 1.8, CI 1.6-2.8) were more likely to obtain a postoperative opioid prescription refill., Conclusion: Approximately 1 in 7 postoperative urology patients receive a postoperative narcotics refill; however, nearly two-thirds receive refills exclusively from non-urologic providers. Attempts to avoid overprescribing of postoperative narcotics need to account for both surgeon and nonsurgeon sources of opioid refills., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Resumption of elective urology cases postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic requires a systematic approach to case prioritization, which may be based on detailed cross-specialty questionnaires, specialty specific published expert opinion or by individual (operating) surgeon review. We evaluated whether each of these systems effectively stratifies cases and for agreement between approaches in order to inform departmental policy., Materials and Methods: We evaluated triage of elective cases postponed within our department due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 9, 2020 to May 22, 2020) using questionnaire based surgical prioritization (American College of Surgeons Medically Necessary, Time Sensitive Procedures [MeNTS] instrument), consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization (based on published urological recommendations) and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scoring (developed and managed within our department). Lower scores represented greater urgency. MeNTS scores were compared across consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores., Results: A total of 204 cases were evaluated. Median MeNTS score was 50 (IQR 44, 55), and mean consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores were 2.6±0.6 and 2.2±0.8, respectively. Median MeNTS scores were 52 (46.5, 57.5), 50 (44.5, 54.5) and 48 (43.5, 54) for individual surgeon based surgical prioritization priority 1, 2 and 3 cases (p=0.129), and 55 (51.5, 57), 47.5 (42, 56) and 49 (44, 54) for consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization priority scores 1, 2, and 3 (p=0.002). There was none to slight agreement between consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization scores (Kappa 0.131, p=0.002)., Conclusions: Questionnaire based, expert opinion based and individual surgeon based approaches to case prioritization result in significantly different case prioritization. Questionnaire based surgical prioritization did not meaningfully stratify urological cases, and consensus/expert opinion based surgical prioritization and individual surgeon based surgical prioritization frequently disagreed. The strengths and weaknesses of each of these systems should be considered in future disaster planning scenarios.