APNs' Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Information
APNs' Use of Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Information
Participants indicated predominately serving urban communities (55%) and rural communities (35%). The most popular work setting was hospital outpatient clinics (41%) and inpatient hospitals (21%), followed by emergency rooms (15%), then long-term care facilities (13%). The largest specialty area was family care (60%).
Table 1 shows APN background information on prescribing, training, and PDMP usage. Less than half (41.4%) had training in prescription drug diversion, and 62% had training in drug abuse. Slightly more than half (58.2%) of APNs who participated in the study were signed up (registered electronically) to use the PDMP online.
Table 2 shows questions related to improving patient care for APNs registered to use the PDMP. For all questions, except question 16, the APNs had a strong sense that the PDMP helped them improve their care of patients. The lowest ranking score was for question 16, with 72.7% indicating some form of agreement (M = 4.4).
Table 3 shows the questions related to identifying drug seeking. For diversion, 94.6% of the APNs thought the PDMP made them more proficient at identifying prescription drug-seeking behavior. The percentage of some form of agreement was also high for investigating how far their patient traveled (88.7%) and how many providers their patient was accessing (98.1%).
As shown in Table 4, the APNs registered to use the PDMP strongly agreed the system is easy to use and the information can be obtained fast enough to be useful. When asked if the PDMP system has impeded their ability to prescribe, 18.5% had some form of agreement (M 5 2.3). A further breakdown of the question shows that 5.6% strongly agreed, 11.1% agreed, and 1.8% slightly agreed.
Table 5 shows APN responses for the questions related to value of the PDMP. Overall, they thought that the system has been an effective tool and played a positive role in prescription medications. As for the potential for abuse of the system, 1.9% slightly agreed.
Participants were asked, "How has access to the PDMP improved your patients' care in your words?" The comments were summarized and the following themes emerged. The PDMP alerts providers to possible abuse, which, in turn, has helped patients seek help for addiction; promotes the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [HIPAA]; corroborates patient history; and addresses abuse of prescription drugs. Overall, these perceived attributes supported the positive impact the PDMP had on their practice.
The APNs generally held a positive view of the PDMP. To use it well, APNs need to understand the current issues related to prescription drug diversion and abuse. The APNs indicated they would like more training on prescription drug diversion (91.2%) and abuse (89.5%).
To understand why the APNs were not registered to use the PDMP, a comparison was made between APNs electronically registered and those not signed up. The individual items in each construct area were averaged and reliabilities were generally good (Table 6).
For the comparisons of APNs electronically registered or not, the only construct not statistically significant was inhibit care/ease of use. The differences found between APNs registered or not were large for patient care and diversion. For patient care, the standardized effect size for the differences was d = 1.8, t(92) = 6.1, P, <05. APNs who were registered to use the PDMP indicated it improved patient care more than APNs who weren't registered. They also indicated positive outcomes for reducing diversion, d = 1.6, t(92) = 6.4, P, <05. Compared to APNs who weren't registered, APNs who accessed the PDMP felt they could better reduce diversion with the information they obtained. Registered APNs also had more agreement that the PDMP added more value to their practice than APNs not registered to access the PDMP information, d = 0.8, t(87) = 3.3, P, <05.
Results
Participants indicated predominately serving urban communities (55%) and rural communities (35%). The most popular work setting was hospital outpatient clinics (41%) and inpatient hospitals (21%), followed by emergency rooms (15%), then long-term care facilities (13%). The largest specialty area was family care (60%).
Table 1 shows APN background information on prescribing, training, and PDMP usage. Less than half (41.4%) had training in prescription drug diversion, and 62% had training in drug abuse. Slightly more than half (58.2%) of APNs who participated in the study were signed up (registered electronically) to use the PDMP online.
Table 2 shows questions related to improving patient care for APNs registered to use the PDMP. For all questions, except question 16, the APNs had a strong sense that the PDMP helped them improve their care of patients. The lowest ranking score was for question 16, with 72.7% indicating some form of agreement (M = 4.4).
Table 3 shows the questions related to identifying drug seeking. For diversion, 94.6% of the APNs thought the PDMP made them more proficient at identifying prescription drug-seeking behavior. The percentage of some form of agreement was also high for investigating how far their patient traveled (88.7%) and how many providers their patient was accessing (98.1%).
As shown in Table 4, the APNs registered to use the PDMP strongly agreed the system is easy to use and the information can be obtained fast enough to be useful. When asked if the PDMP system has impeded their ability to prescribe, 18.5% had some form of agreement (M 5 2.3). A further breakdown of the question shows that 5.6% strongly agreed, 11.1% agreed, and 1.8% slightly agreed.
Table 5 shows APN responses for the questions related to value of the PDMP. Overall, they thought that the system has been an effective tool and played a positive role in prescription medications. As for the potential for abuse of the system, 1.9% slightly agreed.
Participants were asked, "How has access to the PDMP improved your patients' care in your words?" The comments were summarized and the following themes emerged. The PDMP alerts providers to possible abuse, which, in turn, has helped patients seek help for addiction; promotes the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [HIPAA]; corroborates patient history; and addresses abuse of prescription drugs. Overall, these perceived attributes supported the positive impact the PDMP had on their practice.
The APNs generally held a positive view of the PDMP. To use it well, APNs need to understand the current issues related to prescription drug diversion and abuse. The APNs indicated they would like more training on prescription drug diversion (91.2%) and abuse (89.5%).
To understand why the APNs were not registered to use the PDMP, a comparison was made between APNs electronically registered and those not signed up. The individual items in each construct area were averaged and reliabilities were generally good (Table 6).
For the comparisons of APNs electronically registered or not, the only construct not statistically significant was inhibit care/ease of use. The differences found between APNs registered or not were large for patient care and diversion. For patient care, the standardized effect size for the differences was d = 1.8, t(92) = 6.1, P, <05. APNs who were registered to use the PDMP indicated it improved patient care more than APNs who weren't registered. They also indicated positive outcomes for reducing diversion, d = 1.6, t(92) = 6.4, P, <05. Compared to APNs who weren't registered, APNs who accessed the PDMP felt they could better reduce diversion with the information they obtained. Registered APNs also had more agreement that the PDMP added more value to their practice than APNs not registered to access the PDMP information, d = 0.8, t(87) = 3.3, P, <05.
