Moving Away From a "One Size Fits All" Model: Ensuring Opioid Stewardship Includes People Who Use Drugs

What is "Opioid Stewardship"? An Overview of Current Definitions and Proposal for a Universally Acceptable Definition

Introduction

Opioid stewardship has been widely used to promote rational use, monitoring and discontinuation of opioid therapy; however, its definition and scope of practice remain unclear.

Objective

To synthesize definitions of opioid stewardship proposed by clinical practice guidelines and professional societies, and to offer a proposal for a universally acceptable definition.

Methods

Systematic literature searches were performed (earliest records to May 2022) in six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA PsycINFO, Scopus, and CENTRAL) and grey sources guidelines development bodies and professional societies through Google. The conventional but widely applied content analysis and word frequencies were used to analyze the definitions and scope of practice.

Results

After removing duplicates, 449 articles were retrieved (439 databases and registers and 11 from other sources), 19 of which included a definition of "opioids stewardship". A total of 12 themes was identified in the definitions, including 1) improvement or appropriateness of prescribing opioids use, 2) mitigation of risk from opioids, 3) monitoring opioid use, 4) evaluation of opioid use, 5) judicious opioid use, 6) appropriateness of opioid disposal, 7) identification and treatment of opioid use disorder, 8) reduction in mortality associated with opioid overdoses, 9) appropriate procurement practices, 10) appropriate storage, 11) promoting better communications between patients and prescribers including education provision and 12) patient-centered decision-making.

Conclusion

Opioid stewardship is inconsistently defined across professional and research literature. While there is a greater focus on appropriateness and need for improvement of prescribing and monitoring of opioid use, the importance of communications between patients and prescribers, and patient involvement in both prescribing and deprescribing decision-making remains sparse. A comprehensive definition has been proposed as part of the work. There is a need to develop and validate the proposed definition and scope of practice to promote rationale for opioid prescribing, use and attainment of favourable outcomes through international consensus involving practitioners, researchers, and patients.

Development and pilot evaluation of an educational session to support sparing opioid prescriptions to opioid naïve patients in a Canadian primary care setting

BACKGROUND

Prescribing rates of some analgesics decreased during the public health crisis. Yet, up to a quarter of opioid-naïve persons prescribed opioids for noncancer pain develop prescription opioid use disorder. We, therefore, sought to evaluate a pilot educational session to support primary care-based sparing of opioid analgesics for noncancer pain among opioid-naïve patients in British Columbia (BC).

METHODS

Therapeutics Initiative in BC has launched an audit and feedback intervention. Individual prescribing portraits were mailed to opioid prescribers, followed by academic detailing webinars. The webinars' learning outcomes included defining the terms opioid naïve and opioid sparing, and educating attendees on the (lack of) evidence for opioid analgesics to treat noncancer pain. The primary outcome was change in knowledge measured by four multiple-choice questions at the outset and conclusion of the webinar.

RESULTS

Two hundred participants attended four webinars; 124 (62%) responded to the knowledge questions. Community-based primary care professionals (80/65%) from mostly urban settings (77/62%) self-identified as family physicians (46/37%), residents (22/18%), nurse practitioners (24/19%), and others (32/26%). Twelve participants (10%) recalled receiving the individualized portraits. While the correct identification of opioid naïve definitions increased by 23%, the correct identification of opioid sparing declined by 7%. Knowledge of the gaps in high-quality evidence supporting opioid analgesics and risk tools increased by 26% and 35%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The educational session outlined in this pilot yielded mixed results but appeared acceptable to learners and may need further refinement to become a feasible way to train professionals to help tackle the current toxic drugs crisis.