Opioid Stewardship: Building on Antibiotic Stewardship Principles

Describing the acceptability and use of an opioid stewardship self-assessment tool in real-world settings

BACKGROUND

The Stewardship Framework (Framework) was developed by an expert clinician group and was designed to provide a mechanism for continuous monitoring of improvement in opioid prescribing in acute hospitals. The aim of this study was to modify the Framework into an Opioid Stewardship Self-Assessment Tool (Self-Assessment Tool), and pilot test the acceptability and its use in a variety of acute hospital settings.

METHODS

The Framework was converted into the Self-Assessment Tool to allow hospitals to undertake a gap analysis of their current opioid stewardship activities. To participate hospitals were required to establish a small team and complete the Self-Assessment Tool. Participating sites were recruited using purposive sampling. Responses were tabulated and coded to enable assessment. 'Acceptability' was defined as the completion of the Self-Assessment Tool (response rate, proportion of questions answered) and responder feedback relating to its content. The use of the Tool was categorised based on the level of detail of responses.

RESULTS

Nineteen of the 20 facilities approached, agreed to participate. The 16 sites which established a small team to facilitate survey completion are included in the final analysis. The overall response rate was 96 % (413/432) for the (27 survey questions across 16 participating sites), 4 % (19/432) of questions were left unanswered or were not interpretable by the study team. Opportunities were identified to enhance the use of the Self-Assessment Tool, particularly to support its potential to assist reflection and planning of local strategies.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the Self-Assessment Tool was an acceptable method of assessing a facility's opioid stewardship capabilities in a real-world setting. The next iteration will be modified using the insights on how the Tool was used by study participants.

Reducing Unplanned Intubations in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit After Children's Surgery: A Quality Improvement Project

BACKGROUND

Unplanned intubation following children's surgery is associated with increased postoperative mortality. In response to being a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program - Pediatric (NSQIP-P) high outlier for postoperative unplanned intubation, we aimed to reduce postoperative unplanned intubation events by 25% in one year.

METHODS/INTERVENTION

A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders was assembled in 2018. Most unplanned intubation events occurred in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Based on apparent causes of unplanned intubations identified in case reviews, an extubation readiness checklist and a postoperative pain management guideline emphasizing non-opioid analgesics were implemented for NICU patients in September 2019. Postoperative unplanned intubation events were tracked prospectively and evaluated using quality improvement statistical process control methods.

RESULTS

Unplanned intubations in the NICU decreased from 0.27 to 0.07 events per patient in the post-intervention group (September 2019-June 2022, n = 145) compared to the pre-intervention group (January 2016-August 2019, n = 200), representing a 76% reduction. Postoperative opioid administration decreased significantly, while acetaminophen usage increased significantly over time. Balancing measures of postoperative pneumonia rate (1.5% vs 0.0%, p = 0.267) and median hospital length of stay [40 (IQR 51) days vs 27 (IQR 60), p = 0.124] were not different between cohorts. The 30-day mortality rate for postoperative patients in the NICU significantly declined [6.5% (n = 13) vs 0.7% (n = 1), p < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative unplanned intubation rates for NICU patients decreased following a quality improvement effort focused on opioid stewardship and extubation readiness.

TYPE OF STUDY

Prospective Quality Improvement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Opioid stewardship program implementation in rural and critical access hospitals in Arizona

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to examine rural hospitals' status in implementing opioid stewardship program (OSP) elements and assess differences in implementation in emergency department (ED) and acute inpatient departments.

DESIGN

Health administrator survey to identify the number and type of OSP elements that each hospital has implemented.

SETTING

Arizona critical access hospitals (CAHs).

PARTICIPANTS

ED and acute inpatient department heads at 17 Arizona CAHs (total of 34 assessments).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Implementation of 11 OSP elements, by department (ED vs inpatient) and prevention orientation (primary vs tertiary).

RESULTS

The percentage of implemented elements ranged from 35 to 94 percent in EDs and 24 to 88 percent in acute care departments. Reviewing the prescription drug monitoring program database and offering alternatives to opioids were the most frequently implemented. Assessing opioid use disorder (OUD) and prescribing naloxone were among the least. The number of implemented elements tended to be uniform across departments. We found that CAHs implemented, on average, 67 percent of elements that prevent unnecessary opioid use and 54 percent of elements that treat OUD.

CONCLUSIONS

Some OSP elements were in place in nearly every Arizona CAH, while others were present in only a quarter or a third of hospitals. To improve, more attention is needed to define and standardize OSPs. Equal priority should be given to preventing unnecessary opioid initiation and treating opioid misuse or OUD, as well as quality control strategies that provide an opportunity for continuous improvement.

Analgesic stewardship in Australian residential aged care facilities: Retrospective audit of a collaborative approach to optimising opioid use

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate retrospectively an analgesic stewardship role of a non-dispensing pharmacist as part of a general practice team providing primary care services to residential aged care facilities (RACF).

METHODS

Our general practice implemented an analgesic stewardship program to optimise and monitor opioid usage for our patients located across 12 RACF in Canberra from March 2019 to September 2020. The primary objective was the development of a multidisciplinary chronic pain care plan to document treatment and monitoring strategies for optimising pain control. The pharmacist reviewed and documented existing pain management strategies in a care plan for each patient and discussed recommendations for optimisation with the general practitioner. The general practitioner implemented accepted recommendations and distributed finalised care plans to the RACF. A retrospective audit of care plans was undertaken to assess the outcomes: mean daily oral morphine equivalence to monitor opioid usage, and pain scores to monitor for any potential harm associated with analgesic stewardship.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-seven residents received an initial care plan. Residents were scheduled for a follow-up care plan after 6 months, which was achieved for 100 residents (60%). Scope for optimising opioid therapy was identified for 47 residents (28%) at baseline and 23 residents (23%) at follow-up. Mean opioid usage and pain scores were reduced at follow-up; 19.4 mg (SD 40.8) versus 13.4 mg (SD 22.8), and 4.2 (SD 2.3) versus 3.9 (SD 2.0), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic, multidisciplinary analgesic stewardship approach may optimise pain management plans and reduce opioid usage in RACF residents.

Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists White Paper on the Role of Opioid Stewardship Pharmacists

Opioid stewardship is one essential function of pain and palliative care pharmacists and a critical need in the United States. In recent years, this country has been plagued by two public health emergencies: an opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, which has exacerbated the opioid epidemic through its economic and psychosocial toll. To develop an opioid stewardship program, a systematic approach is needed. This will be detailed in part here by the Opioid Stewardship Taskforce of the Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists (SPPCP), focusing on the role of the pharmacist. Many pain and palliative care pharmacists have made significant contributions to the development and daily operation of such programs while also completing other competing clinical tasks, including direct patient care. To ensure dedicated time and attention to critical opioid stewardship efforts, SPPCP recommends and endorses opioid stewardship models employing a full time, opioid stewardship pharmacist in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Early research suggests that opioid stewardship pharmacists are pivotal to improving opioid metrics and pain care outcomes. However, further research and development in this area of practice is needed and encouraged.

Acute Pain Management Pearls: A Focused Review for the Hospital Clinician

Acute pain management is a challenging area encountered by inpatient clinicians every day. While patient care is increasingly complex and costly in this realm, the availability of applicable specialists is waning. This narrative review seeks to support diverse hospital-based healthcare providers in refining and updating their acute pain management knowledge base through clinical pearls and point-of-care resources. Practical guidance is provided for the design and adjustment of inpatient multimodal analgesic regimens, including conventional and burgeoning non-opioid and opioid therapies. The importance of customized care plans for patients with preexisting opioid tolerance, chronic pain, or opioid use disorder is emphasized, and current recommendations for inpatient management of associated chronic therapies are discussed. References to best available guidelines and literature are offered for further exploration. Improved clinician attention and more developed skill sets related to acute pain management could significantly benefit hospitalized patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization.

Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of opioid use disorder under the supervision of opioid stewardship programs: it's time to act now

The third opium war may have already started, not only due to illicit opioid trafficking from the Golden Crescent and Golden Triangle on the international front but also through indiscriminate opioid prescription and opioid diversion at home. Opioid use disorder (OUD), among unintentional injuries, has become one of the top 4 causes of death in the United States (U.S.). An OUD is defined as a problematic pattern of opioid use resulting in clinically significant impairment or distress, consisting of 2 or more of 11 problems within 1 year, as described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Observation of aberrant behaviors of OUD is also helpful for overworked clinicians. For the prevention of OUD, the Opioid Risk Tool and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure are appropriate screening tests before and during opioid administration, respectively. Treatment of OUD consists of 3 opioid-based U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, and non-opioid-based symptomatic medications for reducing opioid withdrawal syndromes, such as α2 agonists, β-blockers, antidiarrheals, antiemetics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and benzodiazepines. There are at least 6 recommendable guidelines and essential terms related to OUD. Opioid stewardship programs are now critical to promoting appropriate use of opioid medications, improving patient outcomes, and reducing misuse of opioids, influenced by the successful implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Despite the lack of previous motivation, now is the critical time for trying to reduce the risk of OUD.

System-level policies on appropriate opioid use, a multi-stakeholder consensus

BACKGROUND

This consensus statement was developed because there are concerns about the appropriate use of opioids for acute pain management, with opposing views in the literature. Consensus statement on policies for system-level interventions may help inform organisations such as management structures, government agencies and funding bodies.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-stakeholder survey using a modified Delphi methodology focusing on policies, at the system level, rather than at the prescriber or patient level. We aimed to provide consensus statements for current developments and priorities for future developments.

RESULTS

Twenty-five experts from a variety of fields with experience in acute pain management were invited to join a review panel, of whom 23 completed a modified Delphi survey of policies designed to improve the safety and quality of opioids prescribing for acute pain in the secondary care setting. Strong agreement, defined as consistent among> 75% of panellists, was observed for ten statements.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a modified Delphi study, we found agreement among a multidisciplinary panel, including patient representation, on prioritisation of policies for system-level interventions, to improve governance, pain management, patient/consumers care, safety and engagement.

Perioperative Pain Management and Opioid Stewardship: A Practical Guide

Surgical procedures are key drivers of pain development and opioid utilization globally. Various organizations have generated guidance on postoperative pain management, enhanced recovery strategies, multimodal analgesic and anesthetic techniques, and postoperative opioid prescribing. Still, comprehensive integration of these recommendations into standard practice at the institutional level remains elusive, and persistent postoperative pain and opioid use pose significant societal burdens. The multitude of guidance publications, many different healthcare providers involved in executing them, evolution of surgical technique, and complexities of perioperative care transitions all represent challenges to process improvement. This review seeks to summarize and integrate key recommendations into a "roadmap" for institutional adoption of perioperative analgesic and opioid optimization strategies. We present a brief review of applicable statistics and definitions as impetus for prioritizing both analgesia and opioid exposure in surgical quality improvement. We then review recommended modalities at each phase of perioperative care. We showcase the value of interprofessional collaboration in implementing and sustaining perioperative performance measures related to pain management and analgesic exposure, including those from the patient perspective. Surgery centers across the globe should adopt an integrated, collaborative approach to the twin goals of optimal pain management and opioid stewardship across the care continuum.