Quality improvement project implemented ORT-OUD for screening SUDs in gynecologic cancer patients, suggesting benefits for treatment access and adherence.
Substance use disorders (SUDs) among women with gynecologic cancers pose challenges to treatment adherence, patient well-being, morbidity, and mortality. Despite the prevalence of SUDs, routine screening practices have not been widely adopted. This quality improvement project implemented the Revised Opioid Risk Tool (ORT-OUD) to screen for SUDs among gynecologic oncology patients. The aims were to provide a referral to addiction psychiatry in a minimum of 80% of patients who screened as high risk and demonstrate the feasibility of ORT-OUD implementation in clinical practice, with at least 75% of advanced practice providers (APPs) reporting it as feasible. The ORT-OUD was offered to all patients aged 18 years or older, consented, and were on the APPs’ schedules during the project implementation period (3 months). Patients completed the ORT-OUD privately, and APPs reviewed and scored the tool. Patients with scores of 3 or higher were offered a referral to addiction psychiatry. Advanced practice providers were then given a survey to assess their perception of the project’s feasibility. Descriptive statistics were used to track referral rates and APP perceptions. Of 134 patients screened, 9.7% were identified as high risk for SUDs. Of those patients, 76.9% accepted a referral to addiction psychiatry. One hundred percent of APPs reported the ORT-OUD implementation as feasible. Challenges identified included time needed to explain the screening tool and patients’ perceptions of the screening tool questions. This project successfully identified a proportion of gynecologic oncology patients at risk for SUDs and facilitated access to specialized care. Challenges in the screening process highlight the importance of patient education and communication strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shor et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: