No abstract

Introduction: The opioid epidemic is a devastating public health issue to which orthopaedic surgery is inextricably linked. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for new persistent opioid use after orthopaedic foot and ankle surgery among patients who were opioid naive preoperatively. Methods: Patients undergoing orthopaedic foot or ankle surgery at a single institution were identified. Our state's prescription monitoring program was used to track opioid prescriptions filled in the preoperative (6 months to 30 days before surgery), perioperative (30 days before to 14 days after), and postoperative (2 to 6 months after) periods. Patients filling a prescription during the preoperative period were excluded. Baseline characteristics, surgical characteristics, and perioperative morphine milligram equivalents were tested for association with new persistent use during the postoperative period. Results: A total of 348 opioid-naive patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the rate of new persistent postoperative opioid use was 8.9%. Patients reporting recreational drug use had the highest risk, at 26.7% (relative risk [RR] = 3.3, 95% confidence interval, 1.3 to 8.2, P = 0.0141). In addition, patients who had perioperative opioid prescription >160 morphine milligram equivalents were at increased risk (RR = 2.2, 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 4.5, P = 0.021). Other risk factors included age ≥40 years (RR = 2.2, P = 0.049) and consumption of ≥6 alcoholic beverages per week (RR = 2.1, P = 0.040). New persistent use was not associated with ankle/hindfoot surgery (versus midfoot/forefoot), bone surgery (versus soft-tissue), or chronic condition (versus acute; P > 0.05). Conclusion: The rate of new persistent postoperative opioid use after orthopaedic foot and ankle surgery is high, at 8.9%. Greater perioperative opioid prescription is a risk factor for new persistent use and is modifiable. Other risk factors include recreational drug use, greater alcohol use, and greater age. Orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeons should limit perioperative prescriptions and be cognizant of these other risk factors to limit the negative effects of opioid prescriptions on their patients and communities. Level of Evidence: Level III

Integrated community case management (iCCM) has now been implemented at scale globally. Literature to-date has focused primarily on the effectiveness of iCCM and the systems conditions required to sustain iCCM. In this study, we sought to explore opportunities taken and lost for strengthening health systems through successive iCCM programmes. We employed a systematic, embedded, multiple case study design for three countries—Ethiopia, Malawi and Mozambique—where Save the Children implemented iCCM programmes between 2009 and 2017. We used textual analysis to code 62 project documents on nine categories of functions of health systems using NVivo 11.0. The document review was supplemented by four key informant interviews. This study makes important contributions to the theoretical understanding of the role of projects in health systems strengthening by not only documenting evidence of systems strengthening in multi-year iCCM projects, but also emphasizing important deficiencies in systems strengthening efforts. Projects operated on a spectrum, ranging from gap-filling interventions, to support, to actual strengthening. While there were natural limits to the influence of a project on the health system, all successive projects found constructive opportunities to try to strengthen systems. Alignment with the Ministry of Health was not always static and simple, and ministries themselves have shown pluralism in their perspectives and orientations. We conclude that systems strengthening remains ‘everybody’s business’ and places demands for realism and transparency on government and the development architecture. While mid-size projects have limited decision space, there is value in better defining where systems strengthening contributions can actually be made. Furthermore, systems strengthening is not solely about macro-level changes, as operational and efficiency gains at meso and micro levels can have value to the system. Claims of ‘systems strengthening’ are, however, bounded within the quality of evaluation and learning investments.

No abstract

No abstract