A bundle of opioid-sparing strategies to eliminate routine opioid prescribing in a urogynecology practice.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports that many patients do not use prescribed opioids following reconstructive pelvic surgery, yet it remains unclear if it is feasible to eliminate routine opioid prescriptions without a negative impact on patients or providers. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after implementing a bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol compared to usual care after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery (transvaginal, laparoscopic, or robotic). Secondary objectives include measures of patient-perceived pain control and provider workload. STUDY DESIGN: The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol intervention was implemented as a division-wide evidence-based practice change on August 1, 2022. This retrospective cohort compares a 6-month postintervention (bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol) cohort to 6-month preintervention (usual care) of patients undergoing minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. A 3-month washout period was observed after bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol initiation. We excluded patients <18 years, failure to consent to research, combined surgery with other specialties, urge urinary incontinence or urinary retention procedures alone, and minor procedures not typically requiring opioids. Primary outcome was measured by proportion discharged without opioids and total oral morphine equivalents prescribed. Pain control was measured by pain scores, postdischarge prescriptions and refills, phone calls and visits related to pain, and satisfaction with pain control. Provider workload was demonstrated by phone calls and postdischarge prescription refills. Data were obtained through chart review on all patients who met inclusion criteria. Primary analysis only included patients prescribed opioids according to the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol protocol. Two sample t tests compared continuous variables and chi-square tests compared categorical variables. RESULTS: Four hundred sixteen patients were included in the primary analysis (207 bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol, 209 usual care). Baseline demographics were similar between groups, except a lower proportion of irritable bowel syndrome (13% vs 23%; P<.01) and pelvic pain (15% vs 24.9%; P=.01), and higher history of prior gynecologic surgery (69.1% vs 58.4%; P=.02) in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was more likely to be discharged without opioids (68.1% vs 10.0%; P<.01). In those prescribed opioids, total oral morphine equivalents on discharge was significantly lower in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort (48.1 vs 81.8; P<.01). The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort had a 20.6 greater odds (confidence interval 11.4, 37.1) of being discharged without opioids after adjusting for surgery type, arthritis/joint pain, IBS, pelvic pain, and contraindication to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was also less likely to receive a rescue opioid prescription after discharge (1.4% vs 9.5%; P=.03). There were no differences in opioid prescription refills (19.7% vs 18.1%; P=.77), emergency room visits for pain (3.4% vs 2.9%; P=.76), postoperative pain scores (mean 4.7 vs 4.0; P=.07), or patient satisfaction with pain control (81.5% vs 85.6%; P=.21). After bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol implementation, the proportion of postoperative phone calls for pain also decreased (12.6% vs 21.5%; P=.02). Similar results were identified when nonadherent prescribing was included in the analysis. CONCLUSION: A bundle of evidence-based opioid sparing strategies and tiered prescribing based on inpatient use increases the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery without evidence of uncontrolled pain or increased provider workload.

The Impact of an Overactive Bladder Care Pathway on Longitudinal Patient Management.

IMPORTANCE: Implementation of an overactive bladder (OAB) care pathway may affect treatment patterns and progression. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effect of OAB care pathway implementation on treatment patterns for women with OAB. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study evaluated women with OAB, before (January 1, 2015-December 31, 2017) and after (January 1, 2019-December 31, 2021) care pathway initiation. Care pathway use included standardized counseling, early introduction of therapy, and close follow-up. Primary outcomes included OAB medication use, follow-up visits, third-line therapy, and time to third-line therapy. RESULTS: A total of 1,349 women were included: 1,194 before care pathway implementation and 155 after. Patients after implementation were more likely to have diabetes mellitus (P = 0.04) and less likely to smoke (P = 0.01). Those managed via a care pathway were more likely to use any medication or third-line therapy within 1 year after consultation (61.3% vs 25.0%; P < 0.001). This included higher proportions receiving a medication (50.3% [95% confidence interval (CI), 41.8%-57.6%] vs 23.3% [95% CI, 20.9%-25.7%]; P < 0.001) and progressing to third-line therapy (22.6% [95% CI, 15.7%-28.9%] vs 2.9% [95% CI, 2%-3.9%]; P < 0.001). Among those who underwent third-line treatment, care pathway use was associated with shorter time to third-line therapy (median, 10 days [interquartile range, 1-56 days] vs 29 days [interquartile range, 7-191 days]; P = 0.013). Those managed via a care pathway were less likely to have additional clinic visits for OAB within 1 year after initial consultation (12.3% vs 23.9%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an OAB care pathway was associated with higher rates of oral medication and third-line therapy yet decreased follow-up office visits. Use of an OAB care pathway may promote consistent and efficient care for women with OAB.

The effect of concomitant hysterectomy on complications following pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

PURPOSE: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery is performed with and without concomitant hysterectomy depending on a variety of factors. The objective was to compare 30-day major complications following POP surgery with and without concomitant hysterectomy. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) multicenter database to compare 30-day complications using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for POP with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Patients were grouped by procedure: Vaginal prolapse repair (VAGINAL), minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC), and open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (OASC). 30-day postoperative complications and other relevant data were evaluated in patients who underwent concomitant hysterectomy compared to those who did not. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the association of concomitant hysterectomy on 30-day major complications stratified by surgical approach. RESULTS: 60,201 women undergoing POP surgery comprised our cohort. Within 30 days of surgery, there were 1722 major complications in 1432 patients (2.4%). Prolapse surgery alone had a significantly lower overall complication rate than with concomitant hysterectomy (1.95% vs 2.81%; p < .001). Multivariable analysis revealed odds of complications following POP surgery was higher among women who underwent concomitant hysterectomy compared to those who did not have hysterectomy in VAGINAL (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.36-1.72), OASC (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.69-4.33), and overall (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.31-1.62), but not in MISC (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67-1.46.) CONCLUSION: Concomitant hysterectomy at the time of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery increases the risk of 30-day postoperative complications in comparison to prolapse surgery alone in our overall cohort.