Impact of a new state law and electronic health record prompt on naloxone prescribing in an academic medical center.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Anna Dugovich, Sophie Robert, James Hatton, Amanda Jewett
{"title":"Impact of a new state law and electronic health record prompt on naloxone prescribing in an academic medical center.","authors":"Anna Dugovich, Sophie Robert, James Hatton, Amanda Jewett","doi":"10.1093/ajhp/zxae199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the impact of a best-practice advisory (BPA) and South Carolina legislation on naloxone prescribing patterns. The primary objective was to assess the change in naloxone prescription rates following BPA implementation. The secondary objective was to analyze the performance of the BPA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Naloxone prescriptions generated before (July 28, 2020, through July 27, 2021) and after (July 28, 2021, through July 28, 2022) BPA implementation were analyzed via retrospective chart review. Lists of patients at risk for opioid overdose and patients for whom the BPA fired were generated for March 2022. The BPA's effectiveness was evaluated based on the proportion of at-risk patients missed by the alert, the frequency with which the BPA resulted in a naloxone prescription, and the reasons for not prescribing naloxone when the BPA fired.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following BPA implementation, there was a significant increase in the average monthly naloxone prescribing rate from 66.1 to 625.5 prescriptions per month. Overall, 2,086 patients were considered at risk for opioid overdose and 1,101 had a BPA alert during March 2022, with 32.7% of BPA alerts resulting in naloxone prescribing. The most common reasons selected for not prescribing naloxone were \"patient refusal\" and \"criteria not met.\" Only 354 patients (17.1%) at risk for opioid overdose also had a BPA alert.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>State legislation and implementation of the BPA significantly increased naloxone prescribing rates. However, a significant proportion of patients identified as being at risk did not have a BPA alert and most BPA alerts did not result in naloxone prescribing, suggesting a need for improvement of the BPA.</p>","PeriodicalId":7577,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":"S189-S196"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxae199","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of a best-practice advisory (BPA) and South Carolina legislation on naloxone prescribing patterns. The primary objective was to assess the change in naloxone prescription rates following BPA implementation. The secondary objective was to analyze the performance of the BPA.

Methods: Naloxone prescriptions generated before (July 28, 2020, through July 27, 2021) and after (July 28, 2021, through July 28, 2022) BPA implementation were analyzed via retrospective chart review. Lists of patients at risk for opioid overdose and patients for whom the BPA fired were generated for March 2022. The BPA's effectiveness was evaluated based on the proportion of at-risk patients missed by the alert, the frequency with which the BPA resulted in a naloxone prescription, and the reasons for not prescribing naloxone when the BPA fired.

Results: Following BPA implementation, there was a significant increase in the average monthly naloxone prescribing rate from 66.1 to 625.5 prescriptions per month. Overall, 2,086 patients were considered at risk for opioid overdose and 1,101 had a BPA alert during March 2022, with 32.7% of BPA alerts resulting in naloxone prescribing. The most common reasons selected for not prescribing naloxone were "patient refusal" and "criteria not met." Only 354 patients (17.1%) at risk for opioid overdose also had a BPA alert.

Conclusion: State legislation and implementation of the BPA significantly increased naloxone prescribing rates. However, a significant proportion of patients identified as being at risk did not have a BPA alert and most BPA alerts did not result in naloxone prescribing, suggesting a need for improvement of the BPA.

新州法律和电子病历提示对学术医疗中心纳洛酮处方的影响。
免责声明:为了加快文章的出版速度,AJHP在接受稿件后会尽快在网上发布。被录用的稿件已经过同行评审和校对,但在进行技术格式化和作者校对之前会在网上发布。目的:评估最佳实践建议(BPA)和南卡罗来纳州立法对纳洛酮处方模式的影响。首要目标是评估 BPA 实施后纳洛酮处方率的变化。次要目标是分析 BPA 的绩效:通过回顾性病历审查分析了 BPA 实施前(2020 年 7 月 28 日至 2021 年 7 月 27 日)和实施后(2021 年 7 月 28 日至 2022 年 7 月 28 日)产生的纳洛酮处方。2022 年 3 月生成了阿片类药物过量风险患者和 BPA 被解雇患者的名单。根据警报错过的高危患者比例、BPA 导致开出纳洛酮处方的频率以及 BPA 触发时未开出纳洛酮处方的原因,对 BPA 的有效性进行了评估:结果:实施 BPA 后,纳洛酮的月平均处方率从 66.1 个处方大幅增至 625.5 个处方。总体而言,2022 年 3 月期间,有 2086 名患者被认为有阿片类药物过量的风险,1101 名患者收到了 BPA 警报,32.7% 的 BPA 警报导致了纳洛酮处方的开具。未开具纳洛酮的最常见原因是 "患者拒绝 "和 "不符合标准"。只有 354 名(17.1%)有阿片类药物过量风险的患者也收到了 BPA 警报:结论:州立法和 BPA 的实施大大提高了纳洛酮的处方率。然而,相当一部分被确定为有风险的患者并没有 BPA 警报,而且大多数 BPA 警报并没有导致纳洛酮处方,这表明需要改进 BPA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
18.50%
发文量
341
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy (AJHP) is the official publication of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). It publishes peer-reviewed scientific papers on contemporary drug therapy and pharmacy practice innovations in hospitals and health systems. With a circulation of more than 43,000, AJHP is the most widely recognized and respected clinical pharmacy journal in the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信