How does use of a prescription monitoring program change medical practice?

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to test for differences in prescription monitoring program (PMP) use between two states, Connecticut (CT) and Rhode Island (RI), with a different PMP accessibility; to explore use of PMP reports in clinical practice; and to examine associations between PMP use and clinician's responses to suspected diversion or "doctor shopping" (i.e., multiple prescriptions from multiple providers).

DESIGN, SETTING, SUBJECTS: From March to August 2011, anonymous surveys were emailed to providers licensed to prescribe Schedule II medications in CT (N = 16,924) and RI (N = 5,567).

OUTCOME MEASURES

PMP use, use of patient reports in clinical practice, responses to suspected doctor shopping, or diversion.

RESULTS

Responses from 1,385 prescribers were received: 998 in CT and 375 in RI. PMP use was greater in CT, where an electronic PMP is available (43.9% vs 16.3%, χ(2)  = 85.2, P < 0.0001). PMP patient reports were used to screen for drug abuse (36.2% CT vs 10.0% RI, χ(2)  = 60.9, P < 0.0001) and detect doctor shopping (43.9% CT vs 18.5% RI, χ(2)  = 68.3, P < 0.0001). Adjusting for potential confounders, responses by PMP users to suspicious medication use behavior were more likely to entail clinical response (i.e., refer to another provider odds ratio, OR, 1.75 [95% confidence interval, CI, 1.10, 2.80]; screen for drug abuse OR 1.93 [1.39, 2.68]; revisit pain/treatment agreement OR 1.97 [1.45, 2.67]; conduct urine screen OR 1.82 [1.29, 2.57]; refer to substance abuse treatment OR 1.30 [0.96, 1.75]) rather than legal intervention (OR 0.45 [0.21, 0.94]) or inaction (OR 0.09 [0.01, 0.70]).

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribers' use of an electronic PMP may influence medical practice, especially opioid abuse detection, and is associated with clinical responses to suspected doctor shopping or diversion.