The Effects of the Opioid Epidemic on Prescribing Practices in Long-Term Care Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate opioid prescribing practices for older adults since the opioid crisis in the United States.<br/> DESIGN: Interrupted time-series analysis on retrospective observational cohort study.<br/> SETTING: 176-bed skilled-nursing facility (SNF).<br/> PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to a long-term care facility with pain-related diagnoses between October 1, 2015, and March 31, 2017, were included. Residents discharged prior to 14 days were excluded. Of 392 residents, 258 met inclusion criteria with 313 admissions.<br/> MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes in opioid prescribing frequency between two periods: Q1 to Q3 (Spring 2016) and Q4 to Q6 for pre- and postgovernment countermeasure, respectively.<br/> RESULTS: Opioid prescriptions for patients with pain-related diagnoses decreased during period one at -0.10% per quarter (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.85-0.85; P = 0.99), with the rate of decline increasing at -3.8% per quarter from period 1 and 2 (95% CI -0.23-0.15; P = 0.64). Opioid prescribing from top International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision category, "Injury and Poisoning" decreased in prescribing frequency by -3.0% per quarter from Q1 to Q6 (95% CI -0.16-0.10; P = 0.54). Appropriateness of pain-control was obtained from the Minimum Data Set version 3.0 "Percent of Residents Who Self-Report Moderate to Severe Pain (Short Stay)" measure; these results showed a significant increase in inadequacy of pain relief by 0.28% per quarter (95% CI 0.12-0.44; P = 0.009).<br/> CONCLUSION: Residents who self-report moderate- to severe pain have significantly increased since October 2015. Opioid prescriptions may have decreased for elderly patients in SNFs since Spring 2016. Further investigation with a larger population and wider time frame is warranted to further evaluate significance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".