Postsurgical Pain Risk Stratification to Enhance Pain Management Workflow in Adult Patients: Design, Implementation, and Pilot Evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Exposure to opioids after surgery is the initial contact for some people who develop chronic opioid use disorder. Hence, effective postoperative pain management, with less reliance on opioids, is critical. The Perioperative Opioid Quality Improvement (POQI) program developed (1) a digital health platform leveraging patient-survey-reported risk factors and (2) a postsurgical pain risk stratification algorithm to personalize perioperative care by integrating several commercially available digital health solutions into a combined platform. Development was reduced in scope by the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aims to assess the screening performance of the risk algorithm, quantify the use of the POQI platform, and evaluate clinicians' and patients' perceptions of its utility and benefit. METHODS: A POQI platform prototype was implemented in a quality improvement initiative at a Canadian tertiary care center and evaluated from January to September 2022. After surgical booking, a preliminary risk stratification algorithm was applied to health history questionnaire responses. The estimated risk guided the patient assignment to a care pathway based on low or high risk for persistent pain and opioid use. Demographic, procedural, and medication administration data were extracted retrospectively from the electronic medical record. Postoperative inpatient opioid use of >90 morphine milligram equivalents per day was the outcome used to assess algorithm performance. Data were summarized and compared between the low- and high-risk groups. POQI use was assessed by completed surveys on postoperative days 7, 14, 30, 60, 90, and 120. Semistructured patient and clinician interviews provided qualitative feedback on the platform. RESULTS: Overall, 276 eligible patients were admitted for colorectal procedures. The risk algorithm stratified 203 (73.6%) as the low-risk group and 73 (26.4%) as the high-risk group. Among the 214 (77.5%) patients with available data, high-risk patients were younger than low-risk patients (age: median 53, IQR 40-65 years, vs median 59, IQR 49-69 years, median difference five years, 95% CI 1-9; P=.02) and were more often female patients (45/73, 62% vs 80/203, 39.4%; odds ratio 2.5, 95% CI 1.4-4.5; P=.002). The risk stratification was reasonably specific (true negative rate=144/200, 72%) but not sensitive (true positive rate=10/31, 32%). Only 39.7% (85/214) patients completed any postoperative quality of recovery questionnaires (only 14, 6.5% patients beyond 60 days after surgery), and 22.9% (49/214) completed a postdischarge medication survey. Interviewed participants welcomed the initiative but noted usability issues and poor platform education. CONCLUSIONS: An initial POQI platform prototype was deployed operationally; the risk algorithm had reasonable specificity but poor sensitivity. There was a significant loss to follow-up in postdischarge survey completion. Clinicians and patients appreciated the potential impact of preemptively addressing opioid exposure but expressed shortcomings in the platform's design and implementation. Iterative platform redesign with additional features and reevaluation are required before broader implementation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».