Ury Wayne A, Rahn Maike, Tolentino Victorio, Pignotti Monica G, Yoon Janet, McKegney Patrick, Sulmasy Daniel P
Saint Vincent's Catholic Medical Centers of New York, Manhattan Campus, New York, NY 10011, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2002 Aug;17(8):625-31. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10837.x.
Although opioids are central to acute pain management, numerous studies have shown that many physicians prescribe them incorrectly, resulting in inadequate pain management and side effects. We assessed whether a case-based palliative medicine curriculum could improve medical house staff opioid prescribing practices.
Prospective chart review of consecutive pharmacy and billing records of patients who received an opioid during hospitalization before and after the implementation of a curricular intervention, consisting of 10 one-hour case-based modules, including 2 pain management seminars.
Consecutive pharmacy and billing records of patients who were cared for by medical residents (n = 733) and a comparison group of neurology and rehabilitative medicine patients (n = 273) that received an opioid during hospitalization in 8-month periods before (1/1/97 to 4/30/97) and after (1/1/99 to 4/30/99) the implementation of the curriculum on the medical service were reviewed. Three outcomes were measured: 1) percent of opioid orders for meperidine; 2) percent of opioid orders with concomminant bowel regimen; and 3) percent of opioid orders using adjuvant nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
The percentage of patients receiving meperidine decreased in the study group, but not in the comparison group. The percentages receiving NSAIDs and bowel medications increased in both groups. In multivariate logistic models controlling for age and race, the odds of an experimental group patient receiving meperidine in the post-period decreased to 0.55 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.32 to 0.96), while the odds of receiving a bowel medication or NSAID increased to 1.48 (95% CI, 1.07 to 2.03) and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.01 to 2.32), respectively. In the comparison group models, the odds of receiving a NSAID in the post-period increased significantly to 2.27 (95% CI, 1.10 to 4.67), but the odds of receiving a bowel medication (0.45; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.00) or meperidine (0.85; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.30) were not significantly different from baseline.
This palliative care curriculum was associated with a sustained (>6 months) improvement in medical residents' opioid prescribing practices. Further research is needed to understand the changes that occurred and how they can be translated into improved patient outcomes.
尽管阿片类药物是急性疼痛管理的核心,但大量研究表明,许多医生对其使用存在不当之处,导致疼痛管理不足并引发副作用。我们评估了以病例为基础的姑息医学课程是否能改善住院医生阿片类药物的处方习惯。
对课程干预实施前后住院期间接受阿片类药物治疗的患者的连续药房和计费记录进行前瞻性图表审查。课程干预包括10个一小时的病例模块,其中包括2次疼痛管理研讨会。
回顾了住院医生治疗的患者(n = 733)以及神经内科和康复医学患者对照组(n = 273)在课程实施前(1997年1月1日至1997年4月30日)和后(1999年1月1日至1999年4月30日)这8个月期间住院时接受阿片类药物治疗的连续药房和计费记录。测量了三个结果:1)哌替啶的阿片类药物订单百分比;2)同时开具肠道用药的阿片类药物订单百分比;3)使用辅助性非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)的阿片类药物订单百分比。
研究组接受哌替啶治疗的患者百分比下降,而对照组未下降。两组接受NSAIDs和肠道用药的百分比均有所增加。在控制年龄和种族的多变量逻辑模型中,实验组患者在后期接受哌替啶的几率降至0.55(95%置信区间[95%CI],0.32至0.96),而接受肠道用药或NSAIDs的几率分别增至1.48(95%CI,1.07至2.03)和1.53(95%CI,1.01至2.32)。在对照组模型中,后期接受NSAIDs的几率显著增至2.27(95%CI,1.10至4.67),但接受肠道用药(0.45;95%CI,0.74至2.00)或哌替啶(0.85;95%CI,0.51至2.30)的几率与基线无显著差异。
该姑息治疗课程与住院医生阿片类药物处方习惯的持续(>6个月)改善相关。需要进一步研究以了解所发生的变化以及如何将这些变化转化为改善患者的治疗效果。