OBJECTIVE: Clinical review of a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) is considered a valuable tool for opioid prescribing risk mitigation; however, PDMP use is often low, even in states with mandatory registration and use policies. The objective was to evaluate the impact of an academic detailing (AD) outreach intervention on PDMP use among primary care prescribers. METHODS: AD intervention was delivered to primary care based controlled substance prescribers (N = 87) and their associated PDMP delegates (n = 42) by a clinical pharmacist as 1 component of a large-scale, statewide initiative to improve opioid prescribing safety. Prescriber PDMP use behavior was assessed by prescriber self-report and analysis of objective 2016-2018 PDMP data regarding the number of monthly report requests. We compared means between pre- and postintervention using a paired t test and plotted the monthly average reports over time to assess the trend of mean reports over time. Generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution was used to assess the difference in the trend and magnitude of the combined count of reports for the entire sample and prescriber subsets that were segmented on the basis of the adoption status of PDMP. RESULTS: The monthly mean of reports by combined prescribers and delegates significantly increased after the AD intervention (mean 28.1 pre vs. 53.0 post; P < 0.001), with the increase in delegate reports (mean 17.1 pre vs. 60.0 post; P < 0.001) driving the overall increase. Reports were requested 40.4 times more often than in the preintervention period (P < 0.001). Patterns of pre- to postchanges in mean monthly report requests differed by baseline PDMP adoption status. CONCLUSION: The AD intervention was transformative in facilitating practice change to use delegates to run reports. Visits with both prescribers and delegates, including hands-on PDMP training and registration assistance, can be viewed as beneficial for practice facilitation.
OBJECTIVE: Clinical review of a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) is considered a valuable tool for opioid prescribing risk mitigation; however, PDMP use is often low, even in states with mandatory registration and use policies. The objective was to evaluate the impact of an academic detailing (AD) outreach intervention on PDMP use among primary care prescribers. METHODS: AD intervention was delivered to primary care based controlled substance prescribers (N = 87) and their associated PDMP delegates (n = 42) by a clinical pharmacist as 1 component of a large-scale, statewide initiative to improve opioid prescribing safety. Prescriber PDMP use behavior was assessed by prescriber self-report and analysis of objective 2016-2018 PDMP data regarding the number of monthly report requests. We compared means between pre- and postintervention using a paired t test and plotted the monthly average reports over time to assess the trend of mean reports over time. Generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution was used to assess the difference in the trend and magnitude of the combined count of reports for the entire sample and prescriber subsets that were segmented on the basis of the adoption status of PDMP. RESULTS: The monthly mean of reports by combined prescribers and delegates significantly increased after the AD intervention (mean 28.1 pre vs. 53.0 post; P < 0.001), with the increase in delegate reports (mean 17.1 pre vs. 60.0 post; P < 0.001) driving the overall increase. Reports were requested 40.4 times more often than in the preintervention period (P < 0.001). Patterns of pre- to postchanges in mean monthly report requests differed by baseline PDMP adoption status. CONCLUSION: The AD intervention was transformative in facilitating practice change to use delegates to run reports. Visits with both prescribers and delegates, including hands-on PDMP training and registration assistance, can be viewed as beneficial for practice facilitation.
Authors: Thomas R Radomski; Felicia R Bixler; Susan L Zickmund; KatieLynn M Roman; Carolyn T Thorpe; Jennifer A Hale; Florentina E Sileanu; Leslie R M Hausmann; Joshua M Thorpe; Katie J Suda; Kevin T Stroupe; Adam J Gordon; Chester B Good; Michael J Fine; Walid F Gellad Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: David S Fink; Julia P Schleimer; Aaron Sarvet; Kiran K Grover; Chris Delcher; Alvaro Castillo-Carniglia; June H Kim; Ariadne E Rivera-Aguirre; Stephen G Henry; Silvia S Martins; Magdalena Cerdá Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mohammad A Hossain; Michael Asamoah-Boaheng; Oluwatosin A Badejo; Louise V Bell; Norman Buckley; Jason W Busse; Tavis S Campbell; Kimberly Corace; Lynn K Cooper; David Flusk; David A Garcia; Alfonso Iorio; Kim L Lavoie; Patricia A Poulin; Becky Skidmore; Joshua A Rash Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Alana M Vivolo-Kantor; Brooke E Hoots; Lawrence Scholl; Cassandra Pickens; Douglas R Roehler; Amy Board; Desiree Mustaquim; Herschel Smith; Stephanie Snodgrass; Stephen Liu Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Oluwasanmi O Adenaiye; Julia B Zirpoli; Marissa Tan; Brendan F Day; Olayiwola Bolaji; Clifford S Mitchell; Marianne Cloeren Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 3.752