Large reduction in opioid prescribing by a multipronged behavioral intervention after major urologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons play a pivotal role in combating the opioid crisis that currently grips the United States. Changing surgeon behavior is difficult, and the degree to which behavioral science can steer surgeons toward decreased opioid prescribing is unclear. METHODS: This was a single-institution, single-arm, pre- and postintervention study examining the prescribing of opioids by urologists for adult patients undergoing prostatectomy or nephrectomy. The primary outcome was the quantity of opioids prescribed in oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) after hospital discharge. The primary exposure was a multipronged behavioral intervention designed to decrease opioid prescribing. The intervention had 3 components: 1) formal education, 2) individual audit feedback, and 3) peer comparison performance feedback. There were 3 phases to the study: a pre-intervention phase, an intervention phase, and a washout phase. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-two patients underwent prostatectomy, and 306 patients underwent nephrectomy. The median OMEs decreased from 195 to 19 in the prostatectomy patients and from 200 to 0 in the nephrectomy patients (P < .05 for both). The median OMEs prescribed did not increase during the washout phase. Prostatectomy patients discharged with opioids had higher levels of anxiety than patients discharged without opioids (P < .05). Otherwise, prostatectomy and nephrectomy patients discharged with and without opioids did not differ in their perception of postoperative pain management, activity levels, psychiatric symptoms, or somatic symptoms (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a multipronged behavioral intervention significantly reduced opioid prescribing for patients undergoing prostatectomy or nephrectomy without compromising patient-reported outcomes.

Strong Conflict of Interest Policies are not Associated With Decreased Industry Payments to Academic Urology Departments.

OBJECTIVE: To identify whether institutions with strong conflicts of interest (COI) policies receive less industry payments than those with weaker policies. While industry-physician interactions can have collaborative benefits, financial COI can undermine preservation of the integrity of professional judgment and public trust. To address this concern, academic institutions have adopted COI policies. It is unclear whether the strength of COI policy correlates with industry payments in urology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 131 US academic urology programs were surveyed on their COI policies, and graded according to the American Medical Student Association (AMSA) criteria. Strength of COI policy was compared against industry payments in the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. RESULTS: Fifty-seven programs responded to the survey, for a total response rate of 44%. There was no difference between COI policy groups on total hospital payments (P = .05), total department payments (P = .28), or dollars per payment (P = .57). On correlation analysis, there was a weak but statistically nonsignificant correlation between AMSA Industry Policy Survey Score and Open Payments payments (ρ = -0.14, P = .32). CONCLUSION: Strength of conflicts of interest policy in academic urology did not correlate to industry payments within the Open Payments database. Establishment of strong COI policy may create offsetting factors that mitigate the intended effects of the policy. Further studies will be required to develop the evidence base for policy design and implementation across various specialties.

Gender Gap in Industry Relationships and Scholarly Impact Among Academic Urologists in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the distribution of industry payments to male and female academic urologists and the relationship between industry funding, academic rank, and scholarly impact. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Academic urologists from 131 programs with publicly available websites were compiled. Gender, rank, fellowship training, and scholarly impact metrics were recorded. Data from the 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database were paired with faculty names. Comparisons were made using Fisher's Exact, Wilcoxon Rank Sum, and Spearman's Rank-Order tests. Multivariable logistic regression modeling identified predictors of receiving payments in the top quintile. RESULTS: Among 1,657 academic urologists, males comprised 84%. While there were no gender differences in the number of urologists listed in the Open Payments Database, males received more total funding (P < .001) and higher median general payments per capita (P < .03). Males also received higher proportions of research funding (P = .002), speaker fees (P = .03), education fees (P = .03) and higher median consulting fees (P = .003). Overall, males had higher scholarly impact (P < .001), which correlated with total industry payments (rho = 0.27, P < .001). Predictors of accepting the top quintile payments include male gender, associate professorship and H-index score ≥10. CONCLUSION: Most academic urologists accepted at least one industry payment in 2016, but males received more funding than females. There is a positive correlation between total industry payments, H-index, and total publications. More research is needed to understand why gender and scholarly productivity are associated with higher payouts. This is another important area that may influence career advancement and compensation for female urologists.