Changes in benzodiazepine, z-drug, and other sedative prescribing in primary care in Ireland between 2014 and 2022

AimsAnalgesic medicines are an important component of pain management, with different medicines carrying different risks and benefits. The aim of this study was to examine trends in analgesic prescribing in Ireland and England between 2014 and 2022.MethodsMonthly data on medicines prescribed and dispensed in primary care were used. For Ireland, data comprised medicines prescribed through the means‐tested General Medical Services (GMS), covering approximately 32% of the population, while for England, data consisted of medicines prescribed through all general practices. Outcomes included rates of dispensings, costs and standard doses (including oral morphine equivalents [OMEs] for opioids) per 1000 population, summarized per year for each drug class and drug.ResultsIn Ireland, the rate of analgesia dispensings increased between 2014 and 2022 for most drugs. Opioid dispensings increased from 979 to 1220 per 1000 population (+25%), while paracetamol increased from 1295 to 1824 (+41%). Systemic NSAIDs decreased from 781 to 734 (−6%). In England, most analgesia dispensing rates decreased, with opioids decreasing from 721 to 585 per 1000 population (−19%), paracetamol from 734 to 484 (−34%) and systemic NSAIDs from 259 to 167 (−35%).ConclusionsSubstantially different dispensing patterns were found in Ireland and England, with dispensing rates in Ireland generally higher and increasing between 2014 and 2022 and rates in England generally lower and decreasing. This discrepancy is likely largely driven by the older age and lower socioeconomic status of GMS patients; however, further research to understand the drivers for this high volume of use is required.

ABSTRACTBackgroundPain is a significant burden on individuals, healthcare systems and society. Analgesic drugs carry many therapeutic benefits; however, all drugs are associated with adverse effects and risk of harm. Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids have been identified as particularly high‐risk due to the risk of side effects and/or dependency. This study aims to examine how patterns of analgesic prescribing have changed in primary care in Ireland between 2014 and 2022.MethodsMonthly data on medicines prescribed and dispensed in primary care on the means‐tested General Medical Services (GMS) scheme in Ireland was used. Prevalence, initiations, discontinuations, chronic use and high‐risk prescribing, as defined by Scottish Polypharmacy Guidance, were summarised per year.ResultsThe prevalence of overall analgesic use decreased slightly over time, with 48.3% of GMS‐eligible individuals dispensed an analgesic in 2014 and 46.3% in 2022. This was largely driven by decreasing NSAID use, from 29.4% in 2014 to 25.0% in 2022. Prevalence for all other analgesic drug classes increased; however, after age/sex adjustment, higher odds of use in 2022 versus 2014 only persisted for gabapentinoids and amitriptyline. Some forms of high‐risk prescribing increased over time, including NSAIDs dispensed with oral anticoagulants, corticosteroids and SSRIs, with fewer decreasing.ConclusionThere was an overall reduction of analgesic use in Ireland, driven by decreasing systemic NSAID use. Although most other analgesic drug classes are increasing, this may largely be explained by changing demographics, particularly the age profile of the population. Despite this, interventions addressing rising high‐risk prescribing may be needed.Statement of SignificanceAnalgesic drug classes are an important focus for improving medication safety. This study suggests analgesic use is falling in Ireland, particularly for systemic NSAIDs, especially in older adults where adverse effects may be most harmful. The increasing prevalence of other analgesics may largely be explained by an ageing population. Analgesic use, and high‐risk prescribing, remains high, suggesting a need for enhanced access to non‐pharmacological services and interventions and also improved education and deprescribing support for healthcare professionals to address high‐risk prescribing.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial impact on a range of health services, particularly in primary care. Research from Ireland suggests while community pharmacies remained open, restrictions for in-person healthcare appointments impacted patients.[1] Although there is evidence that the onset of the pandemic affected medicines utilisation internationally,[2] it is unclear how prescribing in Ireland changed following March 2020. Aim To evaluate how dispensing of medications in primary care in Ireland changed following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to expected trends. Methods This was an interrupted time series study, and the protocol was pre-registered (doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WNQHR). It used publicly available data from the Health Service Executive Primary Care Reimbursement Services for each month between January 2016 and July 2022. Data covered dispensing on the General Medical Services (i.e. medical card) scheme for all medication therapeutic subgroups and commonly dispensed medications (based on the top 100 individual medications per month). Pre-pandemic data (January 2016-November 2019) was used to forecast expected trends from December 2019 onwards for each subgroup and medication with 99% prediction intervals. The Holt-Winters method was used, which decomposes time series data into seasonal, trend, and irregular components. Three months of observed data unaffected by the pandemic (December 2019-February 2020, validation period) were compared to the forecast to validate accuracy of predictions. Observed data were compared to forecasts in March 2020 (as the first month of pandemic restrictions in Ireland) and over the remainder of the study period from April 2020-July 2022. Statistical significance was defined as observed data outside the 99% prediction interval (p<0.01). Results The overall number of dispensings was 7.6% (99%CI 2.5% to 13.2%) higher than forecast in March 2020. Many (31/77) therapeutic subgroups had dispensing significantly different from forecast in March 2020. Drugs for obstructive airway disease had the largest difference, with dispensing 26.2% (99%CI 19.5%-33.6%) higher than forecasted. Other subgroups with dispensing significantly higher than forecasted included minerals, analgesics, thyroid therapy, serum lipid-reducing agents and diuretics. Dispensing was significantly lower than forecasted for other gynaecologicals (17.7% lower, 99%CI 6.3%-26.6%) and dressings (11.6%, 99%CI 9.4%-41.6%). Similarly, many individual medications had significantly higher dispensing in March 2020. Notably, dispensing of amoxicillin (with/without clavulanic acid) and oral prednisolone were lower than forecasted in the months following the onset of the pandemic, particularly during winter 2020/2021. Conclusion There was a peak in dispensing for many long-term medications in March 2020 suggesting patients obtained additional supplies of their regular medicines as pandemic restrictions were introduced. Exceptions were dispensing of two therapeutic subgroups (dressings/intrauterine devices) linked to in-person healthcare consultations, illustrating the disruption to service delivery. Lower than expected dispensing of antimicrobials and reduced seasonal peaks may be partly due to reduced infection transmission generally. Although we were limited by lacking data on the number of people dispensed each medication, this is the first study to examine changes in medication use during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland, considering all therapeutic areas. This study provides evidence to inform planning for medication demand and supply for future major health events.

Antibiotics are often the most common medication prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) and are often expected by patients despite campaigns such as Under the Weather. Antibiotic resistance is increasing in the community. The Health Service Executive (HSE) has issued 'Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prescribing in Primary Care in Ireland' aiming to optimise safe prescribing. This audit aims to analyse change in quality of prescribing after educational intervention. GP prescribing patterns were analysed over a week in October 2019 and re-audited in February 2020. Anonymous questionnaires detailed demographics, condition and antibiotic details. Educational intervention included texts, information and review of current guidelines. Data were analysed on a password protected spreadsheet. The HSE Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prescribing in Primary Care were taken as reference standard. A standard of 90% compliance for choice of antibiotic and 70% compliance for dose and course was agreed. FindingsAuditRe-AuditNumber prescriptions4024Number delayed scripts4/40=10%1/24=4.2%Adult37/40=92.5%19/24=79.2%Child3/40=7.5%5/24=20.8%IndicationURTI22.50%25%LRTI10%4%Other RTI37.50%42%UTI20%29%Skin12.50%0%Gynaecological2.50%0%2+ Infections 5%0%Co-amoxiclav17.50%12.50%AdherenceChoice37/40=92.5%22/24=91.7%Dose28/39=71.8%17/24=70.8%Course28/40=70%12/24=50%Discussion: Excellent antibiotic choice and dose concordance with guidelines was noted, with both phases meeting the set standards. Suboptimal course compliance with guidelines occurred in the re-audit. Potential causes include concerns regarding resistance and patient factors not included. This audit included unequal number of prescriptions in each phase but are still of significance and addresses a clinically relevant topic.

BackgroundThe overuse of antimicrobials is recognized as the main selective pressure driving the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance in human bacterial pathogens. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common infections presented in primary care and empirical antimicrobial treatment is currently recommended. Previous research has identified that a substantial proportion of Irish general practitioners (GPs) prescribe antimicrobials for UTIs that are not in accordance with the Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prescribing in Primary Care in Ireland. The aim of this trial is to design, implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention on GP antimicrobial prescribing and adult (18 years of age and over) patients’ antimicrobial consumption when presenting with a suspected UTI.Methods/designThe Supporting the Improvement and Management of Prescribing for urinary tract infections (SIMPle) study is a three-armed intervention with practice-level randomization. Adult patients presenting with suspected UTIs in primary care will be included in the study.The intervention integrates components for both GPs and patients. For GPs the intervention includes interactive workshops, audit and feedback reports and automated electronic prompts summarizing recommended first-line antimicrobial treatment and, for one intervention arm, a recommendation to consider delayed antimicrobial treatment. For patients, multimedia applications and information leaflets are included. Thirty practices will be recruited to the study; laboratory data indicate that 2,038 patients will be prescribed an antimicrobial in the study. The primary outcome is a change in prescribing of first-line antimicrobials for UTIs in accordance with the Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prescribing in Primary Care in Ireland. The study will take place over 15 months with a six-month intervention period. Data will be collected through a remote electronic anonymized data-extraction system, a text-messaging system and GP and patient interviews and surveys. The intervention will be strengthened by the implementation of a social marketing framework and an economic evaluation.Trial registrationThis intervention is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID NCT01913860.

<h3>Background</h3> Atrial Fibrillation (AF) a common, frequently asymptomatic condition is a major risk factor for stroke. Identification of AF enables effective preventive treatment to be offered with potential to reduce stroke risk by up to two thirds. While there is international consensus that AF screening is valuable what is less clear is the optimal mode and location for AF screening. Primary care has been identified as a potential location for AF screening. One lead ECG devices have been found to be more accurate than pulse palpation in detecting AF. <h3>Methods</h3> A pilot AF screening programme in primary care in southern Ireland using a one-lead ECG device, KardiaMobile. General practitioners (GPs) were recruited from Cork and Kerry. GPs opportunistically invited patients ≥65 years attending for GP visits to undergo AF screening, blood pressure check and identification of smoking status. Data was returned to researchers at UCC using a clinical report form. <h3>Results</h3> Anonymised data from 2298 patients, 52 GPs and 33 GP practices was collected. Among the 2298, 46% (1051) female, 50% (1162) male, 4% (85) gender was not recorded, patients screened, 109 (4.7%) patients with previously undiagnosed AF were detected 3.4% (79) were male, 1% (25) female, 0.3% (7) gender was not recorded. These patients ranged in age from 65–100y, average age 71y. <h3>Discussion</h3> One-lead ECG screening for AF appears to be feasible in Irish general practice and may prove useful for early detection of AF. The yield of newly detected AF in this study is similar to other studies where the AF detection rate ranged from 0.1% to 5%. There was a higher proportion of AF detected in participants aged 80 years and over, this is consistent with other studies where AF is more commonly detected in the older age groups. These finding s can be used to inform a national screening programme in Ireland. These findings suggest that AF screening in primary care is feasible and can lead to detection of newly diagnosed cases of AF who can be assessed for treatment. The findings are consistent with other previous studies where the newly detected rate of AF was estimated to be between 0.1%-5%. This study identified a higher proportion of newly diagnosed AF in males which is similar to previous studies where males were twice as likely to be diagnosed with AF than females.

IntroductionAs health reforms move Ireland from a mixed public-private system toward universal healthcare, it is important to understand variations in prescribing practice for patients with differing health cover and socioeconomic status. This study aims to determine how prescribing patterns for patients aged ≥ 65 years in primary care in Ireland differ between patients with public and private health cover.MethodsThis was an observational study using anonymised data collected as part of a larger study from 44 general practices in Ireland (2011–2018). Data were extracted from electronic records relating to demographics and prescribing for patients aged ≥ 65 years. The cohort was divided between those with public health cover (via the General Medical Services (GMS) scheme) and those without. Standardised rates of prescribing were calculated for pre-specified drug classes. We also analysed the number of medications, polypharmacy, and trends over time between groups, using multilevel linear regression adjusting for age and sex, and hospitalisations.ResultsOverall, 42,456 individuals were included (56% female). Most were covered by the GMS scheme (62%, n = 26,490). The rate of prescribing in all drug classes was higher for GMS patients compared to non-GMS patients, with the greatest difference in benzodiazepine anxiolytics. The mean number of unique medications prescribed to GMS patients was 10.9 (SD 5.9), and 8.1 (SD 5.8) for non-GMS patients. The number of unique medications prescribed to both GMS and non-GMS cohorts increased over time. The increase was steeper in the GMS group where the mean number of medications prescribed increased by 0.67 medications/year. The rate of increase was 0.13 (95%CI 0.13, 0.14) medications/year lower for non-GMS patients, a statistically significant difference.ConclusionOur study found a significantly larger number of medications were prescribed to patients with public health cover, compared to those without. Increasing medication burden and polypharmacy among older adults may be accelerated for those of lower socioeconomic status. These findings may inform planning for moves towards universal health care, and this would provide an opportunity to evaluate the effect of expanding entitlement on prescribing and medications use.

BackgroundHigh-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antiplatelet agents accounts for a significant proportion of hospital admissions due to preventable adverse drug events. The recently completed PINCER trial has demonstrated that a one-off pharmacist-led information technology (IT)-based intervention can significantly reduce high-risk prescribing in primary care, but there is evidence that effects decrease over time and employing additional pharmacists to facilitate change may not be sustainable.Methods/designWe will conduct a cluster randomised controlled with a stepped wedge design in 40 volunteer general practices in two Scottish health boards. Eligible practices are those that are using the INPS Vision clinical IT system, and have agreed to have relevant medication-related data to be automatically extracted from their electronic medical records. All practices (clusters) that agree to take part will receive the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention, but will be randomised to one of 10 start dates. The DQIP intervention has three components: a web-based informatics tool that provides weekly updated feedback of targeted prescribing at practice level, prompts the review of individual patients affected, and summarises each patient's relevant risk factors and prescribing; an outreach visit providing education on targeted prescribing and training in the use of the informatics tool; and a fixed payment of 350 GBP (560 USD; 403 EUR) up front and a small payment of 15 GBP (24 USD; 17 EUR) for each patient reviewed in the 12 months of the intervention. We hypothesise that the DQIP intervention will reduce a composite of nine previously validated measures of high-risk prescribing. Due to the nature of the intervention, it is not possible to blind practices, the core research team, or the data analyst. However, outcome assessment is entirely objective and automated. There will additionally be a process and economic evaluation alongside the main trial.DiscussionThe DQIP intervention is an example of a potentially sustainable safety improvement intervention that builds on the existing National Health Service IT-infrastructure to facilitate systematic management of high-risk prescribing by existing practice staff. Although the focus in this trial is on Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and antiplatelets, we anticipate that the tested intervention would be generalisable to other types of prescribing if shown to be effective.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, dossier number: NCT01425502

(1) Background: Due to increasing antibiotic resistance, the frequency of antibiotic use should be questioned in dentistry and attention paid to the choice of the best suited substance according to guidelines. In Germany, overprescribing of clindamycin was noteworthy in the past. Therefore, the aim of our study was to determine the trend of antibiotic prescriptions in primary dental care. (2) Methods: Prescriptions of antibiotics in German primary dental care from 2017 to 2021 were analysed using dispensing data from community pharmacies, claimed to the statutory health insurance (SHI) funds, and compared with all antibiotic prescriptions in primary care. Prescriptions were analysed based on defined daily doses per 1000 SHI-insured persons per day (DID). (3) Results: Amoxicillin was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic (0.505 DID in 2017, 0.627 in 2021, +24.2%) in primary dental care, followed by clindamycin (0.374 DID in 2017, 0.294 in 2021, -21.4%). Dental prescriptions still made up 56% of all clindamycin prescriptions in primary care in 2021. (4) Conclusions: Our study suggests that the problem of overuse of clindamycin in German dentistry has improved, but still persists.

BackgroundThe treatment of upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) accounts for the majority of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care, although an antibiotic therapy is rarely indicated. Non-clinical factors, such as time pressure and the perceived patient expectations are considered to be reasons for prescribing antibiotics in cases where they are not indicated. The improper use of antibiotics, however, can promote resistance and cause serious side effects. The aim of the study was to clarify whether the antibiotic prescription rate for infections of the upper respiratory tract can be lowered by means of a short (2 x 2.25h) communication training based on the MAAS-Global-D for primary care physicians.MethodsIn total, 1554 primary care physicians were invited to participate in the study. The control group was formed from observational data. To estimate intervention effects we applied a combination of difference-in-difference (DiD) and statistical matching based on entropy balancing. We estimated a corresponding multi-level logistic regression model for the antibiotic prescribing decision of German primary care physicians for URTIs.ResultsUnivariate estimates detected an 11-percentage-point reduction of prescriptions for the intervention group after the training. For the control group, a reduction of 4.7% was detected. The difference between both groups in the difference between the periods was -6.5% and statistically significant. The estimated effects were nearly identical to the effects estimated for the multi-level logistic regression model with applied matching. Furthermore, for the treatment of young women, the impact of the training on the reduction of antibiotic prescription was significantly stronger.ConclusionsOur results suggest that communication skills, implemented through a short communication training with the MAAS-Global-D-training, lead to a more prudent prescribing behavior of antibiotics for URTIs. Thereby, the MAAS-Global-D-training could not only avoid unnecessary side effects but could also help reducing the emergence of drug resistant bacteria. As a consequence of our study we suggest that communication training based on the MAAS-Global-D should be applied in the postgraduate training scheme of primary care physicians.

PurposeNon-medical or contextual factors strongly influence physicians’ prescribing behavior and may explain why drugs, such as benzodiazepines and Z-drugs, are still frequently prescribed in spite of well-known adverse effects. This study aimed to explore which contextual factors influence the prescription of hypnotics and sedatives and to compare their role in primary and secondary care.MethodsUnderstanding medical practices as games with specific rules and strategies and performed in a largely habitual, not fully conscious manner, we asked a maximum variation sample of 12 hospital doctors and 12 general practitioners (GPs) about their use of hypnotics and sedatives. The interviews were analyzed by qualitative content analysis.ResultsHospital doctors’ and GPs’ use of hypnotics and sedatives was influenced by a variety of contextual factors, such as the demand of different patient groups, aims of management, time resources, or the role of nurses and peers. Negotiating patient demands, complying with administrative regulations, and finding acceptable solutions for patients were the main challenges, which characterized the game of drug use in primary care. Maintaining the workflow in the hospital and finding a way to satisfy both nurses and patients were the main challenges in secondary care.ConclusionsEven if doctors try to act rationally, they cannot escape the interplay of contextual factors such as handling patient needs, complying with administrative regulations, and managing time resources. Doctors should balance these factors as if they were challenges in a complex game and reflect upon their own practices.

Benzodiazepines are commonly used to treat anxiety and/or insomnia but are associated with substantial safety risks. Changes to prescribing patterns in primary care may be facilitated through tailored quality improvement strategies. Academic detailing (AD) may be an effective method of promoting safe benzodiazepine prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of AD on benzodiazepine prescribing among family physicians. We used an interrupted time series matched cohort design using population-based administrative claims databases. Participants were family physicians practicing in Ontario, Canada. The intervention was a voluntary AD service which involves brief service-oriented educational outreach visits by a trained pharmacist. The focus was on key messages for safer benzodiazepine prescribing in primary care with an emphasis on judicious prescribing to older adults aged 65 and older. Physicians in the intervention group were those who received at least one AD visit on benzodiazepine use between June 2019 and February 2020. Physicians in the control group were included if they did not receive an AD visit during the study period. Intervention physicians were matched to control physicians 1:4, on a variety of characteristics. Physicians were excluded if they had inactive billing or billing of less than 100 unique patient visits in the calendar year prior to the index date. The primary outcome was mean total benzodiazepine prescriptions at the level of the physician. Secondary outcomes were rate (per 100) of patients with long-term prescriptions, high-risk prescriptions, newly started prescriptions, and benzodiazepine-related patient harms. Data were analyzed using a repeated measures pre-post comparison with an intention-to-treat. Analyses were then stratified to focus on effects within higher-prescribing physicians. There were 1337 physicians were included in the study; 237 who received AD and 1064 who did not. There was no significant change in benzodiazepine prescribing when considering all physicians in the intervention and matched control groups. Although not significant, a greater reduction in total benzodiazepine prescriptions was observed amongst the highest-volume prescribing physicians who received the intervention (% change in slope = -0.53, 95%CI = -2.34 to 1.30, p > .05). The main limitation of our study was the voluntary nature of the AD intervention, which may have introduced a self-selection bias of physicians most open to changing their prescribing. This study suggests that future AD interventions should focus on physicians with the greatest room for improvement to their prescribing.

This study examines the cost-effectiveness of the OPTI-SCRIPT intervention on potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care. Economic evaluation, using incremental cost-effectiveness and cost utility analyses, conducted alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial of twenty-one general practices and 196 patients, to compare a multifaceted intervention with usual practice in primary care in Ireland. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) were determined by a pharmacist. Incremental costs, PIPs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at 12-month follow-up were estimated using multilevel regression. Uncertainty was explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The intervention was associated with a nonsignificant mean cost increase of €407 (95 percent CIs, -357-1170), a significant mean reduction in PIPs of 0.379 (95 percent CI, 0.092-0.666), and a nonsignificant mean increase in QALYs of 0.013 (95 percent CIs, -0.016-0.042). The incremental cost per PIP avoided was €1,269 (95 percent CI, -1400-6302) and the incremental cost per QALY gained was €30,535 (95 percent CI, -334,846-289,498). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.602 at a threshold value of €45,000 per QALY gained and was at least 0.845 at threshold values of €2,500 per PIP avoided and higher. While the OPTI-SCRIPT intervention was effective in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing in primary care in Ireland, our findings highlight the uncertainty with respect to its cost-effectiveness. Further studies are required to explore the health and economic implications of interventions targeting potentially inappropriate prescribing.

The treatment of upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) accounts for the majority of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care, although an antibiotic therapy is rarely indicated. Non-clinical factors, such as time pressure and the perceived patient expectations are considered to be reasons for prescribing antibiotics in cases where they are not indicated. The improper use of antibiotics, however, can promote resistance and cause serious side effects. The aim of the study was to clarify whether the antibiotic prescription rate for infections of the upper respiratory tract can be lowered by means of a short (2 x 2.25h) communication training based on the MAAS-Global-D for primary care physicians. In total, 1554 primary care physicians were invited to participate in the study. The control group was formed from observational data. To estimate intervention effects we applied a combination of difference-in-difference (DiD) and statistical matching based on entropy balancing. We estimated a corresponding multi-level logistic regression model for the antibiotic prescribing decision of German primary care physicians for URTIs. Univariate estimates detected an 11-percentage-point reduction of prescriptions for the intervention group after the training. For the control group, a reduction of 4.7% was detected. The difference between both groups in the difference between the periods was -6.5% and statistically significant. The estimated effects were nearly identical to the effects estimated for the multi-level logistic regression model with applied matching. Furthermore, for the treatment of young women, the impact of the training on the reduction of antibiotic prescription was significantly stronger. Our results suggest that communication skills, implemented through a short communication training with the MAAS-Global-D-training, lead to a more prudent prescribing behavior of antibiotics for URTIs. Thereby, the MAAS-Global-D-training could not only avoid unnecessary side effects but could also help reducing the emergence of drug resistant bacteria. As a consequence of our study we suggest that communication training based on the MAAS-Global-D should be applied in the postgraduate training scheme of primary care physicians.

Increasing oxycodone prescribing and its association with opioid-related harms have raised concerns. In Norway, nearly 90% of opioids are prescribed in primary care, making primary care decisions important to overall opioid exposure. In-hospital use may influence primary care practices through several mechanisms. This study analyses oxycodone and morphine use in Norwegian hospitals and its association with primary care prescribing from 2010 to 2021, alongside a review of tender agreements for these medications. Morphine and oxycodone, available in all relevant formulations, served as opioid proxies to compare covariation between hospitals and their catchment areas. We analyzed 2010-2021 procurement data from hospital pharmacies and primary care dispensing data from the Norwegian Prescription Database for all hospital trusts. Correlations between hospital and primary care morphine-to-oxycodone prescribing ratios were assessed using Pearson's r. Annual tender agreements were obtained from the national Hospital Procurement Organization. Hospital oxycodone use increased by 67.0% and primary care prescribing rose by 86.5%. Morphine use increased by 12.6% in hospitals but decreased by 23.2% in primary care. A moderate covariation (Pearson's r = 0.48) between hospital use and primary care prescribing was observed. Hospital tender agreements for morphine declined by 80%, while those for oxycodone remained stable. Oxycodone use substantially increased relative to morphine in Norwegian hospitals and primary care. Prescription patterns show moderate covariation, suggesting a potential link between hospital and primary care prescribing, though causality remains uncertain. Tender agreements may contribute to prescribing trends in hospitals, with possible associations in primary care. This study is the first to provide quantitative evidence of covariation between in-hospital use and primary care opioid prescribing across a national healthcare system. Despite recommendations favoring morphine, oxycodone prescribing continues to rise in Norway, with marked geographical variation. By linking procurement data, prescription patterns and tender agreements, our findings highlight the need to consider hospital practices and structural factors when addressing opioid prescribing. These results offer new insights into potential levers for opioid stewardship across care levels.