Learning optimal opioid prescribing and monitoring: a simulation study of medical residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Hospitalized patients often receive opioids. There is a lack of consensus regarding evidence-based guidelines or training programs for effective management of pain in the hospital. We investigated the viability of using an Internet-based opioid dosing simulator to teach residents appropriate use of opioids to treat and manage acute pain. Materials and methods We used a prospective, longitudinal design to evaluate the effects of simulator training. In face-to-face didactic sessions, we taught 120 (108 internal medicine and 12 family medicine) residents principles of pain management and how to use the simulator. Each trainee completed 10 training and, subsequently, 5 testing trials on the simulator. For each trial, we collected medications, doses, routes and times of administration, pain scores, and a summary score. We used mixed-effects regression models to assess the impact of simulation training on simulation performance scores, variability in pain score trajectories, appropriate use of short- and long-acting opioids, and use of naloxone. Results Trainees completed 1582 simulation trials (M = 13.2, SD = 6.8), with sustained improvements in their simulated pain management practices. Over time, trainees improved their overall simulated pain management scores (b = 0.05, P < .01), generated lower pain score trajectories with less variability (b = −0.02, P < .01), switched more rapidly from short-acting to long-acting agents (b = −0.50, P < .01), and used naloxone less often (b = −0.10, P < .01). Discussion and conclusions Trainees translated their understanding of didactically presented principles of pain management to their performance on simulated patient cases. Simulation-based training presents an opportunity for improving opioid-based inpatient acute pain management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".