4.2 Article

Effect of CDC Opioid-Prescribing Guidelines in a Community Hospital Emergency Department

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000001317

关键词

CDC guidelines; opioid crisis; opioid prescription practices; opioids

资金

  1. Health Resources and Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of Health and Human Resources (HHS) [D33HP25770-01-00]
  2. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health [5-TO1-0H008628]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the impact of the CDC's opioid prescription guidelines on adult patients presenting with low back pain in the emergency department. The results showed a significant reduction in both the quantity and length of opioid prescriptions after the guidelines were implemented, demonstrating the positive influence of public health policies on provider decision making and behaviors.
The United States continues to battle the addiction and overdose deaths with the opioid epidemic. Prescription opioids are responsible for more than half of these deaths. This before-after study was conducted to assess the effect of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) opioid prescription guidelines. Data were abstracted from electronic health records of adult patients presenting with low back pain seen in the emergency department during the study period. SAS statistical software was used to compare opioid prescription practices before and after the intervention. A total of 1006 patients were included in the analysis. Opioid prescriptions decreased by 11% post-CDC guidelines (45% vs 34%). Of patients receiving opioids (n = 383), there was a 6% reduction in the number of days (<5 days) for which opioids were prescribed post-CDC guidelines (14% vs 8%). CDC guidelines on opioid prescribing were associated with a significant reduction in opioid prescribing in terms of both quantity and length of time prescribed. Public health policies as guidelines may positively influence provider decision making and behaviors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据