Use of electronic health record data to examine administrations of pro re nata analgesics during hip fracture post‐acute care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Medications prescribed to older adults in US skilled nursing facilities (SNF) and administrations of pro re nata (PRN) "as needed" medications are unobservable in Medicare insurance claims. There is an ongoing deficit in our understanding of medication use during post-acute care. Using SNF electronic health record (EHR) datasets, including medication orders and barcode medication administration records, we described patterns of PRN analgesic prescribing and administrations among SNF residents with hip fracture. METHODS: Eligible participants resided in SNFs owned by 11 chains, had a diagnosis of hip fracture between January 1, 2018 to August 2, 2021, and received at least one administration of an analgesic medication in the 100 days after the hip fracture. We described the scheduling of analgesics, the proportion of available PRN doses administered, and the proportion of days with at least one PRN analgesic administration. RESULTS: Among 24 038 residents, 57.3% had orders for PRN acetaminophen, 67.4% PRN opioids, 4.2% PRN non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and 18.6% PRN combination products. The median proportion of available PRN doses administered per drug was 3%-50% and the median proportion of days where one or more doses of an ordered PRN analgesic was administered was 25%-75%. Results differed by analgesic class and the number of administrations ordered per day. CONCLUSIONS: EHRs can be leveraged to ascertain precise analgesic exposures during SNF stays. Future pharmacoepidemiology studies should consider linking SNF EHRs to insurance claims to construct a longitudinal history of medication use and healthcare utilization prior to and during episodes of SNF care.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".