How Physician Self-Perceptions Affect the Impact of Peer Comparison Feedback on Opioid Prescribing.

Peer comparison feedback is a promising strategy for reducing opioid prescribing and opioid-related harms. Such comparisons may be particularly impactful among underestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as high prescribers relative to their peers. But peer comparisons could also unintentionally increase prescribing among overestimating clinicians who do not perceive themselves as lower prescribers than peers. The objective of this study was to assess if the impact of peer comparisons varied by clinicians' preexisting opioid prescribing self-perceptions. Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial of peer comparison interventions among emergency department and urgent care clinicians was used. Generalized mixed-effects models were used to assess whether the impact of peer comparisons, alone or combined with individual feedback, varied by underestimating or overestimating prescriber status. Underestimating and overestimating prescribers were defined as those who self-reported relative prescribing amounts that were lower and higher, respectively, than actual relative baseline amounts. The primary outcome was pills per opioid prescription. Among 438 clinicians, 54% (n = 236) provided baseline prescribing self-perceptions and were included in this analysis. Overall, 17% (n = 40) were underestimating prescribers whereas 5% (n = 11) were overestimating prescribers. Underestimating prescribers exhibited a differentially greater decrease in pills per prescription compared to nonunderestimating clinicians when receiving peer comparison feedback (1.7 pills, 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.2 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (2.8 pills, 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.8 pills). In contrast, there were no differential changes in pills per prescription for overestimating versus nonoverestimating prescribers after receiving peer comparison (1.5 pills, 95% CI, -0.9 to 3.9 pills) or combined peer and individual feedback (3.0 pills, 95% CI, -0.3 to 6.2 pills). Peer comparisons were more impactful among clinicians who underestimated their prescribing compared to peers. By correcting inaccurate self-perceptions, peer comparison feedback can be an effective strategy for influencing opioid prescribing.

The Effect Of Clinician Feedback Interventions On Opioid Prescribing.

An initial opioid prescription with a greater number of pills is associated with a greater risk for future long-term opioid use, yet few interventions have reliably influenced individual clinicians' prescribing. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of feedback interventions for clinicians in reducing opioid prescribing. The interventions included feedback on a clinician's outlier prescribing (individual audit feedback), peer comparison, and both interventions combined. We conducted a four-arm factorial pragmatic cluster randomized trial at forty-eight emergency department (ED) and urgent care (UC) sites in the western US, including 263 ED and 175 UC clinicians with 294,962 patient encounters. Relative to usual care, there was a significant decrease in pills per prescription both for peer comparison feedback (-0.8) and for the combination of peer comparison and individual audit feedback (-1.2). This decrease was sustained during follow-up. There were no significant changes for individual audit feedback alone, and no interventions changed the proportion of encounters with an opioid prescription.

Stratifying risk of urinary tract malignant tumors in patients with asymptomatic microscopic hematuria.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patients who could safely avoid unnecessary radiation and instrumentation after the detection of microscopic hematuria. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients who were referred to urologists and underwent a full evaluation for asymptomatic microscopic hematuria during a 2-year period in an integrated care organization in 3 regions along the West Coast of the United States. A test cohort and validation cohort of patients with hematuria evaluations between January 9, 2009, and August 15, 2011, were identified. Patients were followed passively through their electronic health records for a diagnosis of urothelial or renal cancer. The degree of microscopic hematuria, history of gross hematuria, smoking history, age, race, imaging findings, and cystoscopy findings were evaluated as risk factors for malignant tumors. RESULTS: The test cohort consisted of 2630 patients, of whom 55 (2.1%) had a neoplasm detected and 50 (1.9%) had a pathologically confirmed urinary tract cancer. Age of 50 years or older and a recent diagnosis of gross hematuria were the strongest predictors of cancer. Male sex was also predictive of cancer, whereas smoking history and 25 or more red blood cells per high-power field on a recent urinalysis were not statistically significant. A Hematuria Risk Index developed from these factors had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.809. In the validation cohort of 1784 patients, the Hematuria Risk Index performed comparably (area under the curve = 0.829). Overall, 32% of the population was identified as low risk and 0.2% had a cancer detected; 14% of the population was identified as high risk, of whom 11.1% had a cancer found. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that a considerable proportion of patients could avoid extensive evaluations with the use of the Hematuria Risk Index.