Clinician Views of an Opioid Prescribing Report with Peer Comparisons and Patient-Reported Outcomes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing feedback to clinicians on their prescribing is a promising approach to right-sizing opioid prescriptions. The present research investigated the perceived acceptability, appropriateness, helpfulness, and areas for improvement of a monthly report providing surgical clinicians feedback on their postoperative opioid prescribing relative to guidelines, peer prescribing, and patient-reported pills taken, as well as on patient-reported ability to manage pain. Between January and May 2023, surgeons, advanced practice providers, and residents who recently received these reports as part of a health system quality improvement intervention completed a survey (n = 38) or interview (n = 8). Mean (SD) acceptability of the prescribing report was 4.2 (0.8), and appropriateness was 4.2 (0.8); appropriateness varied by clinical role. All features of the report were rated as "very" or "extremely" helpful by a majority of respondents. Interviewees wished for fuller explanations, real-time updates, and improved accuracy. These findings can inform the design of clinician feedback in learning health systems.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it