Nudging Emergency Care Providers to Reduce Opioid Prescribing Using Peer Norm Comparison Feedback: A Pilot Randomized Trial

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility, acceptability, and potential impact of using audit and feedback (A&F) with or without peer norm comparison on opioid prescribing by emergency medicine providers. METHODS: A convenience sample of 37 emergency medicine providers were recruited from 16 emergency departments in Western Pennsylvania for a pilot randomized controlled trial. Participants completed a baseline survey, were randomly allocated to A&F (N = 17) or A&F with peer norm comparison (N = 20), and were asked to complete a postintervention survey. We matched each participant 1:1 to a control who was not exposed to either intervention. RESULTS: At baseline, 57% of participants perceived that they prescribed opioids at the same frequency as their peers, whereas 32% perceived prescribing less than and 11% perceived prescribing more than their peers. Most participants rated the interventions as helpful, with no differences between conditions. For the A&F with peer norm comparison condition, from pre- to postintervention, there was a relative increase of 20% in the percentage of participants who perceived that they prescribed more opioids than their peers but no change in the A&F condition (P = 0.02). 56.8% of controls, 52.9% of A&F participants, and 75.5% of A&F with peer norm comparison participants reduced their opioid prescribing (P = 0.33). The mean reduction in opioid prescriptions (SD) was 3.3. (9.6) for controls, 3.9 (10.5) for A&F, and 7.3 (7.8) for A&F with peer norm comparison (P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Audit and feedback interventions with peer norm comparisons are helpful to providers, can alter perceptions about prescribing norms, and are a potentially effective way to alter ED providers' opioid prescribing behavior.