Opioid Dose Reductions by Sex and Race in a Cohort of Patients in a Family Medicine Clinic.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 Centers for Disease Control's "Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for Pain in United States" called for attention and action toward reducing disparities in untreated and undertreated pain among Black and Latino patients. There is growing evidence for controlled substance safety committees (CSSC) to change prescribing culture, but few have been examined through the lens of health equity. We examined the impact of a primary care CSSC on opioid prescribing, including by patients' race and sex. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Our primary outcome was a change in prescribed morphine milligram equivalents (MME) at baseline (2017) and follow-up (2021). We compared the differences in MME by race and sex. We also examined potential intersectional disparities. We used paired t test to compare changes in mean MME's and logistic regression to determine associations between patient characteristics and MME changes. RESULTS: Our cohort included 93 patients. The mean opioid dose decreased from nearly 200 MME to 136.1 MME, P < .0001. Thirty percent of patients had their dose reduced to under 90 MME by follow-up. The reduction rates by race or sex alone were not statistically significant. There was evidence of intersectional disparities at baseline. Black women were prescribed 88.5 fewer MME's at baseline compared with their White men counterparts, P = .04. DISCUSSION: Our findings add to the previously documented success of CSSCs in reducing opioid doses for chronic nonmalignant pain to safer levels. We highlight an opportunity for primary care based CSSCs to lead the efforts to identify and address chronic pain management inequities.

Using PROMIS Scores to Provide Cost-Conscious Follow-up After Foot and Ankle Surgery.

BACKGROUND: National campaigns in the United States, such as Choosing Wisely, emphasize that decreasing low-value office visits maximizes health care value. Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used to quantify postoperative outcomes, they have not been assessed as a tool to help guide clinicians consider alternatives or discontinue in-person follow-up visits. The purpose of this study is to assess the frequency and cost of in-person follow-up visits after patients report substantial improvement defined as 2 consecutive improvements above preoperative Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) scores. METHODS: Retrospective PROMIS PI data were obtained between 2015 and 2020 for common elective foot (n = 759) and ankle (n = 578) surgical procedures. Patients were divided into quartiles according to their preoperative PI score. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate time to substantial improvement. Substantial improvement was defined as having 2 consecutive postoperative minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) above preoperative PROMIS PI scores. MCID was measured using the distribution-based method. Multivariable negative binomial models were used to determine the number of visits and direct associated costs after substantial improvement. The cost to payors was estimated using reimbursement rates. RESULTS: Within 3 months, 12% to 46% of foot and 16% to 61% of ankle patients achieved substantial improvement. Results vary by preoperative pain quartile, with patients who report higher preoperative pain scores achieving earlier improvement. After achieving substantial improvement, foot and ankle patients averaged 3.60 and 4.01 follow-up visits during the remaining 9 months of the year. Visit costs averaged $266 and $322 per foot and ankle patient respectively. CONCLUSION: Postoperative follow-up visits are time-consuming and costly. Physicians might consider objective measures, such as PROMIS PI, to determine the need, timing, and alternatives for in-person follow-up visits for elective foot and ankle surgeries after patients demonstrate reliable clinical improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study at a single institution.

Effects of syringe material, sample storage time, and temperature on blood gases and oxygen saturation in arterialized human blood samples.

BACKGROUND: The practice of on-ice storage of arterial-blood samples in plastic syringes for delayed analysis continues, and the effects of storage time and temperature on the measurement of blood-oxygen-saturation values (S(aO2)) have not been adequately described. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of syringe material, storage time, and storage temperature on normal arterialized blood gas and S(aO2) values. METHODS: We used a temperature-controlled extracorporeal circuit to "arterialize" 500 mL of fresh, whole human blood at 37 degrees C, and we used certified calibration gases of 12% O2 and 5% CO2 to produce normal blood-gas values. From that arterialized blood we took 90 samples and randomly assigned them to 6 groups, until there were 15 samples in each group. The groups were (1) plastic syringe, analyzed immediately, (2) plastic syringe, stored 30 min at 0-4 degrees C, (3) plastic syringe, stored 30 min at 22 degrees C, (4) glass syringe, analyzed immediately, (5) glass syringe, stored 30 min at 0-4 degrees C, and (6) glass syringe, stored 30 min at 22 degrees C. RESULTS: Compared to the samples that were analyzed immediately, the P(O2) of the samples stored in plastic syringes for 30 min at 22 degrees C and at 0-4 degrees C was significantly higher, with a clinically important magnitude of 11.9-13.7 mm Hg. The P(CO2) of blood stored in glass for 30 min at 0-4 degrees C was significantly lower, although the magnitude of the difference (1.5 mm Hg) was not clinically important. There were no statistically significant differences in pH or oxygen saturation among the 6 groups. CONCLUSION: For accurate arterial-blood-gas results, samples drawn in plastic syringes should be analyzed immediately. If the analysis is going to be delayed, the samples should be drawn and stored in glass.