MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943598989 · doi:10.1097/cxa.0000000000000019

Does Physician Education and Factsheet Impact on Safe Opioid Use in Emergency Patients?

2018· article· en· W2943598989 on OpenAlex
Betty S. Chan, Nilani Mills, Angela L. Chiew

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Addiction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOxycodoneEmergency departmentAdverse effectOpioidIntervention (counseling)Emergency medicineProspective cohort studyPatient educationAnesthesiaPhysical therapyInternal medicineFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objectives: To evaluate whether an intervention involving educating doctors and providing leaflets to patients implemented in the Emergency Department (ED) can improve patient knowledge and self-reported practices regarding safe opioid use for acute painful conditions and to investigate patterns of opioid use upon discharge from ED. Methods: This is a prospective non-randomized controlled study. Patients ≥16 years discharged from a tertiary ED with oxycodone for acute painful conditions were recruited. They were interviewed by a single investigator within 24 hours, and subsequently 1 week following discharge. After the control arm was recruited, emergency doctors were given an education session on the safe use of opioids for acute painful conditions and asked to provide education and distribute factsheets to patients. Patient knowledge and postdischarge self-reported practices were compared in the 2 groups, and to determine the pattern of opioid use postdischarge from ED. Results: A total of 233 patients were recruited, 110 and 123 in control and intervention arm respectively. 60% (n = 74/123) of intervention arm patients received factsheets. Patients in the intervention group were more likely to know their recommended dosage and recall adverse effects: 56% (n = 62/110) versus 81% (n = 100/123) ( P < 0.001) and 71% (n = 78/110) versus 83% (n = 102/123) ( P < 0.01) respectively. Patients’ self-reported practices significantly improved ( P < 0.05) regarding safe storage (OR = 15.09), driving (OR = 6.48) and co-ingestion of sedatives (OR = 16.93). 56/197 (28%) patients did not take any oxycodone following discharge. Conclusions: Our intervention, which consisted of educating doctors and providing leaflets to patients, has successfully influenced clinical practice, enhancing education that doctors provided to patients and improved patient knowledge and safer opioid use post-discharge. Objectifs: Évaluer si une intervention impliquant l’éducation des médecins et fournissant des dépliants aux patients mis en œuvre au service des urgences (ED) peut améliorer les connaissances des patients et les pratiques auto-déclarées concernant l’utilisation sécuritaire des opioïdes dans les cas d’affection douloureuses aiguës et étudier les schémas d’utilisation des opioïdes après libération d’une ED. Méthodes: Il s’agit d’une étude prospective non aléatoire contrôlée. Des patients âgés de 16 ans et plus libérés d’un ED tertiaire après avoir reçu un traitement à l’oxycodone pour des affections douloureuses aiguës ont été recrutés. Ils ont été interrogés par un seul enquêteur dans les 24 heures, puis 1 semaine après la sortie. Après le recrutement du bras de contrôle, les médecins d’urgence ont reçu une séance d’éducation sur l’utilisation sans danger des opioïdes pour les affections douloureuses aiguës et ont été demandé à fournir une éducation et à distribuer des fiches d’information aux patients. Les connaissances des patients et les pratiques auto-déclarées post-congé ont été comparées dans les deux groupes; et pour déterminer le profil d’utilisation des opioïdes après la sortie de l’urgence (ED). Résultats: 233 patients ont été recrutés, 110 et 123 respectivement dans le groupe contrôle et le groupe d’intervention. 60% (n = 74/123) des patients sous bras d’intervention ont reçu des fiches d’information. Les patients du groupe d’intervention étaient plus susceptibles de connaître la dose recommandée et de se rappeler les effets indésirables: 56% (n = 62/110) contre 81% (n = 100/123) ( P <0,001) et 71% (n = 78 / 110) contre 83% (n = 102/123) ( P <0,01) respectivement. Les pratiques auto-déclarées des patients se sont significativement améliorées ( P <0,05) en ce qui concerne l’entreposage sécuritaire (RC = 15,09), la conduite (RC = 6,48) et la co-ingestion de sédatifs (RC = 16,93). 56/197 patients (28%) n’ont pas pris d’oxycodone après leur sortie. Conclusions: Notre intervention, qui consistait à éduquer les médecins et à distribuer des tracts aux patients, a influencé avec succès la pratique clinique, améliorant la formation dispensée par les médecins aux patients et améliorant les connaissances des patients et une utilisation plus sÛre des opioïdes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it