Automated Dispensing Cabinet Functionality Expansion to Reduce Controlled Substance Inventory Discrepancies

Background: Automated dispensing cabinets have the potential to create technology-induced errors that can arise during controlled substance medication dispensing. Despite enhancements made to the medication use process, the impact of ADC functionality on technology-induced controlled substance discrepancies have yet to be described. Objective: To evaluate the impact of ADC functionality expansion on technology-induced errors such as controlled substance discrepancies created during “blind inventory counts” and cassette dispensing errors. Methods: This quasi-experimental study was conducted over 18 months that evaluated the expanded use of dispensing cassettes within 8 ADCs at the University of Chicago Medicine. Unit-dose controlled substances with high usage were directed for inventory reassignment to cassettes. Controlled substance dispenses, blind inventory counts discrepancies and cassette dispensing errors were evaluated before and after cassette expansion. ADC discrepancy and Cassette Dispensing Error rates were calculated using 1-week segments across the study period. Results: Of the 64 040 dispenses during the study period, the proportion of cassette dispenses increased from 16% to 72% after cassette expansion. Controlled substance discrepancies decreased from 11 to 7 discrepancies for every 1000 dispenses ( P < .0001). After cassette expansion, cassette dispensing errors increased to roughly 28 errors for every 1000 dispenses ( P < .0001). Conclusion: Expansion of ADC functionality created opportunities for reduced technology-induced controlled substance discrepancy rates at the expense of increased cassette dispensing errors.

The Impact of CARA Mandates on Nurse Practitioner Controlled Substance Prescribing in Oregon: A Cohort Study

Background: In 2017, the United States Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) expanded authorization to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder to nurse practitioners (NPs). In contrast to physicians, NPs were required to complete 16 additional hours of training on controlled substance prescribing before a buprenorphine waiver application. As this differential additional education mandate was seen as a potential barrier, we sought to evaluate the impact of this requirement on both waiver acquisition and prescribing of controlled substances, comparing NPs who obtained waivers to those who had not.Methods: Through 2016-2018 Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program and linked NP licensure data, we identify factors associated with waiver acquisition at baseline (2016), and evaluated changes in controlled substance prescribing before (2016) and after waiver acquisition (2018). Using chi-square and Mann-Whitny U testing, we calculated and described controlled substance prescribing types, rates, and patient level quantities including co-prescribing of benzodiazepines and opioids by NPs. Multivariable linear regression compared prescribing by waivered and non-waivered NPs for significant changes in non-buprenorphine controlled substance prescribing.Results: Waivered NPs were more likely to have a psychiatric certification, have prior disciplinary action, and have generally higher levels of non-buprenorphine controlled substance prescribing than their non-waivered counterparts.. While there was a significant increase in opioid prescriptions per patient among waivered NPs, following CARA implementation, co-prescribing of benzodiazepines and opioids significantly declined among waivered NPs relative to non-waivered NPsConclusions: Although educational requirements were rescinded in 2021 for most applicants, enhanced opioid prescribing training should be incorporated into professional educational offerings regardless of regulatory mandate. We recommended continued focus on education regarding avoidance of high risk prescribing such as co-prescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines. NPs who acquire waivers may take on higher risk patients who are already using opioids and these findings may represent transitions in practice and patient setting.

Fewer Opioids but More Benzodiazepines? Prescription Trends by Specialty in Response to the Implementation of Michigan’s Opioid Laws

Objectives To characterize the effects of Michigan’s controlled substance legislation on acute care prescriber behavior by specialty, in a single hospital system. Design A retrospective study of opioid and benzodiazepine prescription records from a hospital electronic medical record system between August 1, 2016, and March 31, 2019, in Detroit, Michigan. Setting Discharges from inpatient and emergency department visits. Intervention Evaluating the impact of implementation of state controlled substance legislation, comparing prescriptions by physicians before, upon, and after June 1, 2018, using regression discontinuity analysis. Methods Total daily prescriptions of opioids and total daily prescriptions of benzodiazepine by physicians in the hospital system. Prescriptions were converted to morphine and lorazepam equivalents for comparability. Results We find 38.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] : 74.1% – 2.9%) decrease of prescription in milligrams of opioid equivalents attributable to implementation of legislation. The main catalyst of the decrease was emergency medicine which experienced 63.9% (95% CI: 109.7%–18.0%) decrease in milligrams of opioid equivalent prescriptions, while surgery increased prescriptions. Though we do not find any statistically significant changes in prescriptions of milligram equivalent of benzodiazepines, we estimate 43.1% (95% CI: 82.6%–3.7%) decrease in count of these prescriptions, implying a significant increase in average dosage of prescriptions. Conclusions The introduction of new regulatory requirements for the prescription of controlled substances led to a general decrease in morphine equivalent milligrams prescribed in most specialties, though it may have increased the dosage of benzodiazepine prescriptions. The change in prescription behavior could be motivated by regulatory hassle or by change in attitude towards opioid prescriptions and increased recognition of opioid use disorder.

Evaluation of discharge prescribing after rescheduling of gabapentin as a controlled substance

Purpose Gabapentin has increasingly been identified as a drug of abuse, especially when used concurrently with opioids. Rescheduling gabapentin as a schedule V controlled substance may strengthen monitoring and prescribing restrictions. The purpose of this study was to characterize the impact of rescheduling gabapentin from a nonscheduled to a schedule V substance in Virginia on discharge prescribing patterns in a health system. Methods This was a retrospective, pre-post, multicenter chart review conducted at 4 sites. Data from 3 months before gabapentin rescheduling (prerescheduling group) and 3 months after gabapentin rescheduling (postrescheduling group) were evaluated. The primary outcome was the percentage of newly prescribed gabapentin prescriptions upon discharge, which was compared between the pre- and postrescheduling groups. Results A similar percentage of gabapentin prescriptions were newly prescribed in the prerescheduling group as compared to the postrescheduling group (55.0% vs 50.0%, P = 0.479). Gabapentin prescribing characteristics did not differ between the groups for new gabapentin prescriptions (n = 55 in the prerescheduling group, n = 50 in the postrescheduling group). Concomitant discharge prescribing of benzodiazepines (5.5% vs 2.0%, P = 0.619) and opioids (45.5% vs 60.0%, P = 0.136) did not differ significantly between the postrescheduling group and prerescheduling group for new gabapentin prescriptions. However, fewer opioid prescriptions exceeded 90 daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) in the postrescheduling group as compared to the prerescheduling group for new gabapentin prescriptions (36.0% vs 20.0%, P = 0.020). Conclusion Gabapentin prescribing practices did not differ before and after rescheduling of gabapentin as a controlled substance. There was a trend toward dosages with reduced daily MME for concomitant opioid prescriptions after rescheduling. However, additional investigation with larger studies over longer periods of time is needed to discover whether gabapentin rescheduling significantly changes prescribing practices.

Evaluation of discharge prescribing after rescheduling of gabapentin as a controlled substance

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose Gabapentin has increasingly been identified as a drug of abuse, especially when used concurrently with opioids. Rescheduling gabapentin as a schedule V controlled substance may strengthen monitoring and prescribing restrictions. The purpose of this study was to characterize the impact of rescheduling gabapentin from a nonscheduled to a schedule V substance in Virginia on discharge prescribing patterns in a health system. Methods This was a retrospective, pre-post, multicenter chart review conducted at 4 sites. Data from 3 months before gabapentin rescheduling (prerescheduling group) and 3 months after gabapentin rescheduling (postrescheduling group) were evaluated. The primary outcome was the percentage of newly prescribed gabapentin prescriptions upon discharge, which was compared between the pre- and postrescheduling groups. Results A similar percentage of gabapentin prescriptions were newly prescribed in the prerescheduling group as compared to the postrescheduling group (55.0% vs 50.0%, P = 0.479). Gabapentin prescribing characteristics did not differ between the groups for new gabapentin prescriptions (n = 55 in the prerescheduling group, n = 50 in the postrescheduling group). Concomitant discharge prescribing of benzodiazepines (5.5% vs 2.0%, P = 0.619) and opioids (45.5% vs 60.0%, P = 0.136) did not differ significantly between the postrescheduling group and prerescheduling group for new gabapentin prescriptions. However, fewer opioid prescriptions exceeded 90 daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) in the postrescheduling group as compared to the prerescheduling group for new gabapentin prescriptions (36.0% vs 20.0%, P = 0.020). Conclusion Gabapentin prescribing practices did not differ before and after rescheduling of gabapentin as a controlled substance. There was a trend toward dosages with reduced daily MME for concomitant opioid prescriptions after rescheduling. However, additional investigation with larger studies over longer periods of time is needed to discover whether gabapentin rescheduling significantly changes prescribing practices.