Use of Electronic Patient Record Systems for Rapid Response to an MHRA Public Assessment Report: Retrospective Observational Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Digital health data and infrastructure facilitate rapid analysis to provide actionable data, thereby fulfilling the principles of a learning health system. In response to a report from the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), a rapid service evaluation was carried out to identify patterns of modified-release (MR) opioid use after elective surgery. Objective: We aimed to describe the prescribing patterns of MR opioids, methods to repurpose existing infrastructure, and the experience of collaboration between clinical and research teams using shared data pipelines. Methods: A retrospective case-control study was conducted at a tertiary care organization across multiple hospital sites in London, United Kingdom. Prescription and administration data for adult patients undergoing elective surgery between March 31, 2019, and June 20, 2025, were extracted from a standardized research data pipeline within 4 weeks of the publication of the MHRA report. Patients were screened for MR opioid prescriptions in the postoperative period and at hospital discharge. Counts and proportions of encounters in which MR opioids were administered or prescribed were evaluated across the study period. Reflections on the application of the infrastructure for this purpose were also documented. Results: Of 126,882 elective surgeries screened, 102,879 (81.1%) met the eligibility criteria. Over the study period, patients received a new MR opioid prescription after 7525 (7.3%) of the 102,879 eligible encounters, with 2438 (2.4%) encounters receiving a new MR opioid prescription at hospital discharge. Postoperative administration of MR opioids and prescribing at discharge have declined since 2020. As a result of this study, a new context-aware alert system was developed to monitor and reduce MR opioid prescribing in this surgical cohort. Reflections on the implementation experience demonstrated how collaboration between clinical and research teams in conjunction with integrated and seamless research pipelines allowed rapid knowledge generation. Key issues raised were the difficulty of validation between parallel data extraction systems and how the two different teams compared nonequitable data points and results. Conclusions: Mature digital and analytical infrastructure within health care institutions can enable swift evaluation of local practices in the context of national medication safety alerts. This can shorten action response times and improve patient care but requires close collaboration between clinicians and research teams. Shared infrastructure between teams across the learning health system improves data quality and provides easy access to the key users. Further work is needed to understand the benefits and challenges of infrastructure built for other use cases and the effectiveness of the intervention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".