Discerning Clinician Perceptions of an Established Opioid Stewardship (DISCLOSE) Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Opioid Stewardship Program (OSP) was created to promote safe and rational prescribing of opioids, where the risks associated with providing opioids for patients must be balanced against the risk of patients experiencing uncontrolled pain. The pharmacist-led OSP was established at 2 Fraser Health Authority (FHA) sites, British Columbia, to provide clinical services through patient referrals and screening. The rate of acceptance of OSP pharmacists’ recommendations has been high, but there was a need to assess clinicians’ perceptions of the program. Objectives: To assess the perceptions of health care professionals at FHA hospitals offering the OSP regarding various aspects of the program and to identify areas of the program that could be modified to further optimize service delivery. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional survey was distributed to about 250 targeted health care professionals, who answered questions regarding their perceptions of the OSP. Data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 71 respondents initiated the survey, of whom 59 were included in the final analyses. Most participants indicated that the OSP pharmacists’ suggestions were valuable for optimizing pain management (52/57, 91%) and preventing adverse events (49/56, 88%). Most participants were satisfied with the quality of communication (51/56, 91%), timeliness to consults (51/52, 98%), and recommendations provided (52/55, 95%). Increasing knowledge transfer, improving communication about intentions for patient follow-up, and expanding services at current sites and to other sites were recommended to improve the OSP. Conclusions: Clinicians responding to the survey reported a high level of satisfaction with and positive views of the pharmacist-led OSP. Providing more education and clarifying intentions for patient follow-up are modifications that could be made to improve the program. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : L’Opioid Stewardship Program (OSP) [programme de gestion des opioïdes] a été mis sur pied pour encourager la prescription sûre et rationnelle d’opioïdes qui permet de peser les risques associés à leur délivrance contre les risques que le patient ressente une douleur incontrôlée. L’OSP, dirigé par les pharmaciens, a été mis en place sur 2 sites de la Fraser Health Authority (FHA) (Colombie-Britannique) afin de fournir des services cliniques par l’entremise de l’aiguillage et du dépistage des patients. Le taux d’acceptation des recommandations des pharmaciens de l’OSP était élevé, mais il était nécessaire d’évaluer la perception des cliniciens à l’égard du programme. Objectifs : Évaluer les perceptions des professionnels de la santé dans les hôpitaux de la FHA offrant l’OSP à l’égard de divers aspects du programme et cerner ceux qui pourraient être modifiés pour optimiser la prestation de services. Méthodes : Une enquête prospective transversale a été distribuée à environ 250 professionnels de la santé ciblés, qui ont répondu à des questions portant sur leur perception de l’OSP. Les données ont été analysées à l’aide de statistiques descriptives simples. Résultats : Au total, les réponses de 71 répondants ont fait l’objet d’analyses. La plupart des participants ont indiqué que les suggestions des pharmaciens de l’OSP étaient utiles pour optimiser la gestion de la douleur (52/57, 91 %) et prévenir les événements indésirables (49/56, 88 %). La plupart des participants étaient satisfaits de la qualité de la communication (51/56, 91 %), de la rapidité des consultations (51/52, 98 %) et des recommandations fournies (52/55, 95 %). Les recommandations suivantes ont été formulées pour améliorer l’OSP : amélioration du transfert des connaissances; amélioration de la communication sur les intentions de suivi des patients; et élargissement des services sur les sites actuels et à d’autres sites. Conclusions : Les cliniciens qui ont répondu au sondage ont fait état d’un niveau élevé de satisfaction et d’opinions positives à l’égard de l’OSP dirigé par les pharmaciens. Une formation accrue et la clarification des intentions quant au suivi des patients sont des modifications qui pourraient être apportées en vue d’améliorer le programme.
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 | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".