Jeffrey P Ebert, E Madeline Grenader, Rachel E Gonzales, Evan A Spencer, Devon M Schroeder, Lauren Southwick, Frances S Shofer, M Kit Delgado, Anish K Agarwal
{"title":"Clinician Views of an Opioid Prescribing Report with Peer Comparisons and Patient-Reported Outcomes.","authors":"Jeffrey P Ebert, E Madeline Grenader, Rachel E Gonzales, Evan A Spencer, Devon M Schroeder, Lauren Southwick, Frances S Shofer, M Kit Delgado, Anish K Agarwal","doi":"10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Providing feedback to clinicians on their prescribing is a promising approach to right-sizing opioid prescriptions. The present research investigated the perceived acceptability, appropriateness, helpfulness, and areas for improvement of a monthly report providing surgical clinicians feedback on their postoperative opioid prescribing relative to guidelines, peer prescribing, and patient-reported pills taken, as well as on patient-reported ability to manage pain. Between January and May 2023, surgeons, advanced practice providers, and residents who recently received these reports as part of a health system quality improvement intervention completed a survey (n = 38) or interview (n = 8). Mean (SD) acceptability of the prescribing report was 4.2 (0.8), and appropriateness was 4.2 (0.8); appropriateness varied by clinical role. All features of the report were rated as \"very\" or \"extremely\" helpful by a majority of respondents. Interviewees wished for fuller explanations, real-time updates, and improved accuracy. These findings can inform the design of clinician feedback in learning health systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":101338,"journal":{"name":"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Providing feedback to clinicians on their prescribing is a promising approach to right-sizing opioid prescriptions. The present research investigated the perceived acceptability, appropriateness, helpfulness, and areas for improvement of a monthly report providing surgical clinicians feedback on their postoperative opioid prescribing relative to guidelines, peer prescribing, and patient-reported pills taken, as well as on patient-reported ability to manage pain. Between January and May 2023, surgeons, advanced practice providers, and residents who recently received these reports as part of a health system quality improvement intervention completed a survey (n = 38) or interview (n = 8). Mean (SD) acceptability of the prescribing report was 4.2 (0.8), and appropriateness was 4.2 (0.8); appropriateness varied by clinical role. All features of the report were rated as "very" or "extremely" helpful by a majority of respondents. Interviewees wished for fuller explanations, real-time updates, and improved accuracy. These findings can inform the design of clinician feedback in learning health systems.