User login
AI-Powered Clinical Documentation Tool Reduces EHR Time for Clinicians
TOPLINE:
An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
- Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
- A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.
TAKEAWAY:
- The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
- The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
- Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.
DISCLOSURES:
Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
- Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
- A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.
TAKEAWAY:
- The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
- The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
- Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.
DISCLOSURES:
Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
An artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical documentation tool helped reduce time spent on electronic health records (EHR) at home for almost 48% physicians, and nearly 45% reported less weekly time spent on EHR tasks outside of normal work hours.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers recruited 112 clinicians from family medicine, internal medicine, and general pediatrics in North Carolina and Georgia.
- Patients were divided into an intervention group (n = 85) and control group (n = 55), with the intervention group receiving a 1-hour training program on a commercially available AI tool.
- A seven-question survey was administered to participants before and 5 weeks after the intervention to evaluate their experience.
TAKEAWAY:
- The researchers found 47.1% of clinicians in the intervention group reported spending less time on the EHR at home compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001); 44.7% reported decreased weekly time on the EHR outside normal work hours compared with 20% in the control group (P = .003).
- The study revealed 43.5% of physicians who used the AI instrument reported spending less time on documentation after visits compared with 18.2% in the control group (P = .002).
- Further, 44.7% reported less frustration when using the EHR compared with 14.5% in the control group (P < .001).
IN PRACTICE:
“Approximately half of clinicians using the AI-powered clinical documentation tool based on interest reported a positive outcome, potentially reducing burnout. However, a significant subset did not find time-saving benefits or improved EHR experience,” the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tsai-Ling Liu, PhD, Center for Health System Sciences, Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers reported potential selection and recall bias in both groups. Additional research is needed to find areas of improvement and assess the effects on clinician groups and health systems, they said.
DISCLOSURES:
Andrew McWilliams, MD, MPH, reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research Quality, the National Institutes of Health, and the Duke Endowment unrelated to this work. Ajay Dharod, MD, reported his role as an electronic health record consultant for the Association of American Medical College CORE program. Jeffrey Cleveland, MD, disclosed his participation on the Executive Client Council, a noncompensated advisory group, for Nuance/Microsoft.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Link Between Vision Impairment and Dementia in Older Adults
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
- The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
- Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
- Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
- The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.
TAKEAWAY:
- The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
- Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
- The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).
IN PRACTICE:
“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.
LIMITATIONS:
The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.
DISCLOSURES:
Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
- The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
- Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
- Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
- The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.
TAKEAWAY:
- The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
- Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
- The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).
IN PRACTICE:
“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.
LIMITATIONS:
The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.
DISCLOSURES:
Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS).
- The analysis included 2767 US adults aged 71 years or older (54.7% female and 45.3% male).
- Vision impairments were defined using 2019 World Health Organization criteria. Near and distance vision impairments were defined as greater than 0.30 logMAR, and contrast sensitivity impairment was identified by scores below 1.55 logCS.
- Dementia was classified using a standardized algorithm developed in NHATS, which incorporated a series of tests measuring cognition, memory and orientation, reports of Alzheimer’s disease, or a dementia diagnosis from the patient or a proxy, and an informant questionnaire (Ascertain Dementia-8 Dementia Screening Interview).
- The study analyzed data from 2021, with the primary outcome being the population attributable fraction (PAF) of dementia from vision impairment.
TAKEAWAY:
- The PAF of dementia associated with at least one vision impairment was 19% (95% CI, 8.2-29.7).
- Impairment in contrast sensitivity had the highest PAF among all other vision issues, at 15% (95% CI, 6.6-23.6). This figure was higher than that for impairment of near acuity, at 9.7% (95% CI, 2.6-17.0), or distance acuity, at 4.9% (95% CI, 0.1-9.9).
- The highest PAFs for dementia due to vision impairment was among participants aged 71-79 years (24.3%; 95% CI, 6.6-41.8), women (26.8%; 95% CI, 12.2-39.9), and non-Hispanic White participants (22.3%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.5).
IN PRACTICE:
“While not proving a cause-and-effect relationship, these findings support inclusion of multiple objective measures of vision impairments, including contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, to capture the total potential impact of addressing vision impairment on dementia,” study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Jason R. Smith, ScM, of the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.
LIMITATIONS:
The limited sample sizes for American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic groups prevented researchers from calculating PAFs for these populations. The cross-sectional design prevented the researchers from examining the timing of vision impairment in relation to a diagnosis of dementia. The study did not explore links between other measures of vision and dementia. Those with early cognitive impairment may not have updated glasses, affecting visual performance. The findings from the study may not apply to institutionalized older adults.
DISCLOSURES:
Jennifer A. Deal, PhD, MHS, reported receiving personal fees from Frontiers in Epidemiology, Velux Stiftung, and Medical Education Speakers Network outside the submitted work. Nicholas S. Reed, AuD, PhD, reported receiving stock options from Neosensory outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Exercise Plus GLP-1 RAs Upped Weight Loss, Bone Retention
TOPLINE:
People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
- Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
- They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
- Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
- Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).
TAKEAWAY:
- The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
- BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm2; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm2; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm2; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm2; P = .20).
- BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm2; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm2; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.
DISCLOSURES:
One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
- Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
- They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
- Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
- Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).
TAKEAWAY:
- The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
- BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm2; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm2; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm2; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm2; P = .20).
- BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm2; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm2; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.
DISCLOSURES:
One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
People with obesity who exercise while taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; liraglutide) showed increased weight loss and preserved bone health, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients were placed on an initial diet that consisted of no more than 800 calories per day for 8 weeks. Those who lost at least 5% of their starting weight were then placed into a 1-year program.
- Participants included 195 adults aged between 18 and 65 years with obesity and no diabetes, 64% of whom were women.
- They were split into four groups of interventions: Exercise only (48 patients), liraglutide only (49 patients), a combination of both (49 participants), and placebo (49 participants), for a 1-year period.
- Patients received liraglutide or volume-matched placebo as daily injections starting at 0.6 mg/d with a weekly increase until 3 mg/d was reached; exercise entailed 30-minute sessions for 4 days a week.
- Researchers studied bone health at each patient’s hip, spine, and forearm after they lost weight, by measuring bone mineral density (BMD).
TAKEAWAY:
- The overall average change in weight loss over the course of 52 weeks was 7.03 kg in the placebo group, 11.19 kg in the exercise group, 13.74 kg in the liraglutide group, and 16.88 kg in the combination group.
- BMD did not change in the combination group in comparison to the placebo group at the hip (mean change, −0.006 g/cm2; 95% CI, −0.017 to 0.004 g/cm2; P = .24) or spine (−0.010 g/cm2; 95% CI, −0.025 to 0.005 g/cm2; P = .20).
- BMD of the spine in the liraglutide group decreased in comparison to the exercise group (mean change, −0.016 g/cm2; 95% CI, −0.032 to −0.001 g/cm2; P = .04) and the placebo group, in addition to decreases in the hip.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our results show that the combination of exercise and GLP-1 RA was the most effective weight loss strategy while preserving bone health,” study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Simon Birk Kjær Jensen, PhD, of the Department of Biomedical Sciences and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and published on June 25 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study only included adults aged between 18 and 65 years without other chronic diseases and may not apply to patients who are older or have diabetes. The study sample was diverse but was conducted in Denmark, with a population of generally similar ancestry.
DISCLOSURES:
One study author reported serving on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Amgen, among others. Other authors reported various financial interests, including grants, personal fees, and salaries, from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, and Abbott Lab, among others.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Which Surgeries Drive the Most Opioid Prescriptions in Youth?
TOPLINE:
according to a new study.
METHODOLOGY:
- The researchers analyzed national commercial and Medicaid claims from December 2020 to November 2021 in children aged 0-21 years.
- More than 200,000 procedures were included in the study.
- For each type of surgery, researchers calculated the total amount of opioids given within 3 days of discharge, measured in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs).
TAKEAWAY:
- In children up to age 11 years, three procedures accounted for 59.1% of MMEs: Tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy (50.3%), open treatment of upper extremity fracture (5.3%), and removal of deep implants (3.5%).
- In patients aged 12-21 years, three procedures accounted for 33.1% of MMEs: Tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy (12.7%), knee arthroscopy (12.6%), and analgesia after cesarean delivery (7.8%).
- Refill rates for children were all 1% or less.
- Refill rates for adolescents ranged from 2.3% to 9.6%.
IN PRACTICE:
“Targeting these procedures in opioid stewardship initiatives could help minimize the risks of opioid prescribing while maintaining effective postoperative pain control,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, and was published in Pediatrics
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers analyzed opioids prescribed only after major surgeries. The sources of data used in the analysis may not fully represent all pediatric patients.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Chua reported consulting fees from the US Department of Justice and the Benter Foundation outside the submitted work. Other authors reported a variety of financial interests, including consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
according to a new study.
METHODOLOGY:
- The researchers analyzed national commercial and Medicaid claims from December 2020 to November 2021 in children aged 0-21 years.
- More than 200,000 procedures were included in the study.
- For each type of surgery, researchers calculated the total amount of opioids given within 3 days of discharge, measured in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs).
TAKEAWAY:
- In children up to age 11 years, three procedures accounted for 59.1% of MMEs: Tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy (50.3%), open treatment of upper extremity fracture (5.3%), and removal of deep implants (3.5%).
- In patients aged 12-21 years, three procedures accounted for 33.1% of MMEs: Tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy (12.7%), knee arthroscopy (12.6%), and analgesia after cesarean delivery (7.8%).
- Refill rates for children were all 1% or less.
- Refill rates for adolescents ranged from 2.3% to 9.6%.
IN PRACTICE:
“Targeting these procedures in opioid stewardship initiatives could help minimize the risks of opioid prescribing while maintaining effective postoperative pain control,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, and was published in Pediatrics
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers analyzed opioids prescribed only after major surgeries. The sources of data used in the analysis may not fully represent all pediatric patients.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Chua reported consulting fees from the US Department of Justice and the Benter Foundation outside the submitted work. Other authors reported a variety of financial interests, including consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
according to a new study.
METHODOLOGY:
- The researchers analyzed national commercial and Medicaid claims from December 2020 to November 2021 in children aged 0-21 years.
- More than 200,000 procedures were included in the study.
- For each type of surgery, researchers calculated the total amount of opioids given within 3 days of discharge, measured in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs).
TAKEAWAY:
- In children up to age 11 years, three procedures accounted for 59.1% of MMEs: Tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy (50.3%), open treatment of upper extremity fracture (5.3%), and removal of deep implants (3.5%).
- In patients aged 12-21 years, three procedures accounted for 33.1% of MMEs: Tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy (12.7%), knee arthroscopy (12.6%), and analgesia after cesarean delivery (7.8%).
- Refill rates for children were all 1% or less.
- Refill rates for adolescents ranged from 2.3% to 9.6%.
IN PRACTICE:
“Targeting these procedures in opioid stewardship initiatives could help minimize the risks of opioid prescribing while maintaining effective postoperative pain control,” the researchers wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, and was published in Pediatrics
LIMITATIONS:
The researchers analyzed opioids prescribed only after major surgeries. The sources of data used in the analysis may not fully represent all pediatric patients.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Chua reported consulting fees from the US Department of Justice and the Benter Foundation outside the submitted work. Other authors reported a variety of financial interests, including consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.