Search

Introduction: The opioid epidemic is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Prior work has shown that emergency department (ED) opioid prescribing can increase the incidence of opioid use disorder in a dose-dependent manner, and systemic changes that decrease default quantity of discharge opioid tablets in the electronic health record (EHR) can impact prescribing practices. However, ED leadership may be interested in the impact of communication around the intervention as well as whether the intervention may differentially impact different types of clinicians (physicians, physician assistants [PA], and nurse practitioners). We implemented and evaluated a quality improvement intervention of an announced decrease in EHR default quantities of commonly prescribed opioids at a large, academic, urban, tertiary-care ED.Methods: We gathered EHR data on all ED discharges with opioid prescriptions from January 1, 2019–December 6, 2021, including chief complaint, clinician, and opioid prescription details. Data was captured and analyzed on a monthly basis throughout this time period. On March 29, 2021, we implemented an announced decrease in EHR default dispense quantities from 20 tablets to 12 tablets for commonly prescribed opioids. We measured pre- and post-intervention quantities of opioid tablets prescribed per discharge receiving opioids, distribution by patient demographics, and inter-clinician variability in prescribing behavior.Results: The EHR change was associated with a 14% decrease in quantity of opioid tablets per discharge receiving opioids, from 14 to 12 tablets (P =

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the United States (US) medical education system with the necessary, yet unprecedented Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) national recommendation to pause all student clinical rotations with in-person patient care. This study is a quantitative analysis investigating the educational and psychological effects of the pandemic on US medical students and their reactions to the AAMC recommendation in order to inform medical education policy.MethodsThe authors sent a cross-sectional survey via email to medical students in their clinical training years at six medical schools during the initial peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey questions aimed to evaluate students' perceptions of COVID-19's impact on medical education; ethical obligations during a pandemic; infection risk; anxiety and burnout; willingness and needed preparations to return to clinical rotations.ResultsSeven hundred forty-one (29.5%) students responded. Nearly all students (93.7%) were not involved in clinical rotations with in-person patient contact at the time the study was conducted. Reactions to being removed were mixed, with 75.8% feeling this was appropriate, 34.7% guilty, 33.5% disappointed, and 27.0% relieved. Most students (74.7%) agreed the pandemic had significantly disrupted their medical education, and believed they should continue with normal clinical rotations during this pandemic (61.3%). When asked if they would accept the risk of infection with COVID-19 if they returned to the clinical setting, 83.4% agreed. Students reported the pandemic had moderate effects on their stress and anxiety levels with 84.1% of respondents feeling at least somewhat anxious. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) (53.5%) was the most important factor to feel safe returning to clinical rotations, followed by adequate testing for infection (19.3%) and antibody testing (16.2%).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the education of US medical students in their clinical training years. The majority of students wanted to return to clinical rotations and were willing to accept the risk of COVID-19 infection. Students were most concerned with having enough PPE if allowed to return to clinical activities.

PurposeTo assess psychological effects of the initial peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on United States (US) medical students in clinical training to anticipate sequelae and prepare for future outbreaks.MethodsAuthors emailed a cross-sectional survey in April-May, 2020 to students in clinical training years at six US medical schools which included validated General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) and Primary Care-PTSD (PC-PTSD-5) screening tools, and asked students about pandemic-related stress and specific concerns. Authors used quantitative and thematic analysis to present results.ResultsOf 2511 eligible students, 741 responded (29.5%). Most students (84.1%) reported at least "somewhat" increased levels of stress and anxiety related to the pandemic. On the GAD-7, 34.3% showed mild, 16.1% moderate, and 9.5% severe anxiety symptoms, with 39.6% demonstrating no/minimal symptoms. One quarter (25.4%) screened positive for PTSD risk symptoms. Top concerns of students chosen from a pre-populated list included inadequate COVID-19 testing, undiagnosed or asymptomatic spread and racial or other disparities in the pandemic. In thematic analysis, students' reactions to removal from clinical learning included: understanding the need to conserve PPE (32.2%), a desire to help (27.7%), worry over infectious risk to others (25.4%) and self (21.2%), and lost learning opportunities (22.5%). Female students were significantly more likely to report anxiety and PTSD risk symptoms. Asian students had a greater risk of moderate anxiety and those underrepresented in medicine (UIM) had greater risk of moderate and severe anxiety symptoms compared to white students.ConclusionsDuring the initial peak phase of COVID-19, over 60% of US medical students screened positive for pandemic-related anxiety and one quarter were at risk for PTSD. Female and UIM students were significantly more affected. Medical schools should consider broad support of students, and targeted outreach to female and UIM students.

Introduction: The opioid epidemic is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Prior work has shown that emergency department (ED) opioid prescribing can increase the incidence of opioid use disorder in a dose-dependent manner, and systemic changes that decrease default quantity of discharge opioid tablets in the electronic health record (EHR) can impact prescribing practices. However, ED leadership may be interested in the impact of communication around the intervention as well as whether the intervention may differentially impact different types of clinicians (physicians, physician assistants [PA], and nurse practitioners). We implemented and evaluated a quality improvement intervention of an announced decrease in EHR default quantities of commonly prescribed opioids at a large, academic, urban, tertiary-care ED., Methods: We gathered EHR data on all ED discharges with opioid prescriptions from January 1, 2019-December 6, 2021, including chief complaint, clinician, and opioid prescription details. Data was captured and analyzed on a monthly basis throughout this time period. On March 29, 2021, we implemented an announced decrease in EHR default dispense quantities from 20 tablets to 12 tablets for commonly prescribed opioids. We measured pre- and post-intervention quantities of opioid tablets prescribed per discharge receiving opioids, distribution by patient demographics, and inter-clinician variability in prescribing behavior., Results: The EHR change was associated with a 14% decrease in quantity of opioid tablets per discharge receiving opioids, from 14 to 12 tablets ( P  = <.001). We found no statistically significant disparities in prescriptions based on self-reported patient race ( P  = 0.68) or gender ( P  = 0.65). Nurse practitioners and PAs prescribed more opioids per encounter than physicians on average and had a statistically significant decrease in opioid prescriptions associated with the EHR change. Physicians had a lesser but still significant drop in opioid prescribing in the post-intervention period., Conclusion: Decreasing EHR defaults is a robust, simple tool for decreasing opioid prescriptions, with potential for implementation in the 42% of EDs nationwide that have defaults exceeding the recommended 12-tablet supply. Considering significant inter-clinician variability, future interventions to decrease opioid prescriptions should examine the effects of combining EHR default changes with targeted interventions for clinician groups or individual clinicians., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. Kai Trepka was supported by grant T32GM007618 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. There are no other conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.