Search

Background: Increases in opioid prescriptions have been described; however, recent trends and prescribing patterns of analgesics in Dutch general practice are largely unknown. Objective: To investigate recent changes in the number of analgesic prescriptions, and the indications for prescribing strong opioids. Furthermore, we aim to identify risk factors for chronic opioid use in Dutch general practice. Design and setting: A retrospective cohort study from 1 July 2013 to 31 June 2022, using a primary care practice based research network. Subjects: Patients with ≥1 prescription for analgesics during the study period were included. Main outcome measure: Changes in the number of prescriptions for paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids in Dutch general practice during the 9-year study period. Moreover, we analyzed indications for prescribing strong opioids by the general practitioner (GP). Results: A total of 18,433 analgesic users were identified. Over time, prescriptions for paracetamol, NSAIDs and weak opioids decreased, while the number of strong opioid prescriptions increased. General practitioners prescribed more strong opioids for non-malignant pain, whereas prescriptions for malignant pain remained stable over time. Risk factors for chronic opioid use (≥90 days) included older age, lower educational level, smoking status and having a history of a musculoskeletal or psychological disorder, a malignancy or sexual, physical or psychological abuse. Conclusions: Considering the increase in strong opioid prescriptions for benign conditions, GPs need to be vigilant for patients who are at risk for chronic use. Regular monitoring and awareness for psychosocial factors in treatment of chronic pain may be key in preventing harms associated with persistent opioid use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prescription opioid use has increased steadily in many Western countries over the past two decades, most notably in the US, Canada, and most European countries, including the Netherlands. Especially the increasing use of prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain has raised concerns. Most opioids in the Netherlands are prescribed in general practices. However, little is known about variation in opioid prescribing between general practices. To better understand this, we investigated practice variation in opioid prescribing for non-cancer pain between Dutch general practices. Methods: Data from 2017–2019 of approximately 10% of all Dutch general practices was used. Each year included approximately 1000000 patients distributed over approximately 380 practices. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with chronic (>90 days) high-dose (≥90 oral morphine equivalents) opioid prescriptions. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with chronic (<90 oral morphine equivalents) opioid prescriptions. Practice variation was expressed as the ratio of the 95th/5th percentiles and the ratio of mean top 10/bottom 10. Funnel plots were used to identify outliers. Potential factors associated with unwarranted variation were investigated by comparing outliers on practice size, patient neighbourhood socioeconomic status, and urbanicity. Results: Results were similar across all years. The magnitude of variation for chronic high-dose opioid prescriptions in 2019 was 7.51-fold (95%/5% ratio), and 15.1-fold (top 10/bottom 10 ratio). The percentage of outliers in the funnel plots varied between 13.8% and 21.7%. Practices with high chronichigh-doseopioid prescription proportions were larger, and had more patients from lower income and densely populated areas. Conclusions: There might be unwarranted practice variation in chronic high-dose opioid prescriptions in primary care, pointing at possible inappropriate use of opioids. This appears to be related to socioeconomic status, urbanicity, and practice size. Further investigation of the factors driving practice variation can provide target points for quality improvement and reduce inappropriate care and unwarranted variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What is the current guideline adherence by general practitioners (GPs) for work-up and subsequent referral from primary to secondary care for patients suffering from infertility?Summary Answer: Guideline adherence by GPs concerning infertility was 9.2% in couples referred.What Is Known Already: Adherence to recommendations can decrease unnecessary referral, diagnostics and treatments, and consequently result in lower expenditures. Moreover, patients can be saved from unnecessary hospital visits, emotional burden and out of pocket costs.Study Design, Size, and Duration: A retrospective cohort study among 306 patients referred for basic fertility work-up between January 2011 and June 2013 from primary care to a secondary care teaching hospital or a tertiary hospital with IVF facilities.Participants/materials, Setting and Methods: Couples were eligible to participate when there was no previous referral for fertility problems and the duration of the child wish was <2 years. Data to assess guideline adherence were collected from the referral letter and the medical records. A patient questionnaire was used to determine patients' general and fertility-related characteristics.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The GP performed a Chlamydia Antibody Titre (CAT) testing and semen analysis as recommended in 15.9% and 42.2% of the referred patients, respectively. According to the guideline, 39% of the couples were under referred (i.e. not immediately referred as recommended), 8.8% were unnecessarily referred and the CAT and semen analysis were unnecessarily repeated in secondary care in 80.0% and 57.1% of cases, respectively.Limitations Reasons For Caution: We could not include non-referred patients with expectant management in primary care, an unknown number of whom became pregnant in this period. This may have resulted in an underestimation of primary care performance.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Our findings show that guideline adherence concerning work-up and subsequent referral for fertility problems is low. The influence of patient demands for referral remains largely unknown. Barriers and facilitators for guideline adherence should be determined to develop interventions to improve guideline adherence in the areas of work-up and referral for fertility care and to diminish duplicate tests in secondary care.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): Funded by CZ, a Dutch healthcare insurer (grant number AFVV 11-232). CZ had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the report. Competing interests: None.Trial Registration Number: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]