Clinical Decision Support to Increase Emergency Department Naloxone Coprescribing: Implementation Report
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Coprescribing naloxone with opioid analgesics is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) best practice to mitigate the risk of fatal opioid overdose, yet coprescription by emergency medicine clinicians is rare, occurring less than 5% of the time it is indicated. Clinical decision support (CDS) has been associated with increased naloxone prescribing; however, key CDS design characteristics and pragmatic outcome measures necessary to understand replicability and effectiveness have not been reported. Objective: This study aimed to rigorously evaluate and quantify the impact of CDS designed to improve emergency department (ED) naloxone coprescribing. We hypothesized CDS would increase naloxone coprescribing and the number of naloxone prescriptions filled by patients discharged from EDs in a large health care system. Methods: Following user-centered design principles, we designed and implemented a fully automated, interruptive, electronic health record-based CDS to nudge clinicians to coprescribe naloxone with high-risk opioid prescriptions. "High-risk" opioid prescriptions were defined as any opioid analgesic prescription ≥90 total morphine milligram equivalents per day or for patients with a prior diagnosis of opioid use disorder or opioid overdose. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to evaluate pragmatic CDS outcomes of reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Effectiveness was the primary outcome of interest and was assessed by (1) constructing a Bayesian structural time-series model of the number of ED visits with naloxone coprescriptions before and after CDS implementation and (2) calculating the percentage of naloxone prescriptions associated with CDS that were filled at an outpatient pharmacy. Mann-Kendall tests were used to evaluate longitudinal trends in CDS adoption. All outcomes were analyzed in R (version 4.2.2; R Core Team). Unlabelled: Between November 2019 and July 2023, there were 1,994,994 ED visits. CDS reached clinicians in 0.83% (16,566/1,994,994) of all visits and 15.99% (16,566/103,606) of ED visits where an opioid was prescribed at discharge. Clinicians adopted CDS, coprescribing naloxone in 34.36% (6613/19,246) of alerts. CDS was effective, increasing naloxone coprescribing from baseline by 18.1 (95% CI 17.9-18.3) coprescriptions per week or 2,327% (95% CI 3390-3490). Patients filled 43.80% (1989/4541) of naloxone coprescriptions. The CDS was implemented simultaneously at every ED and no adaptations were made to CDS postimplementation. CDS was maintained beyond the study period and maintained its effect, with adoption increasing over time (τ=0.454; P<.001). Conclusions: Our findings advance the evidence that electronic health record-based CDS increases the number of naloxone coprescriptions and improves the distribution of naloxone. Our time series analysis controls for secular trends and strongly suggests that minimally interruptive CDS significantly improves process outcomes.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,063 | 0,163 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».