2183 Balancing patient-centeredness and patient safety in the hospitals: The case of pain care and patient satisfaction

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This study seeks to understand the relationship between opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction among non-surgical, hospitalized patients. As part of this study, we qualitatively examined challenges in delivering safe and patient-centered care through voices of physicians’, and nurses.’ METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We collected data through in-person interviews using semi-structured guides tailored to the informant roles. Study participants came from 1 healthcare system located in a mid-Western state. Each interview lasted 30–45 minutes, was audio-recorded with consent, and transcribed for analysis. Two researchers each coded 17 transcripts for discussions around patient-centeredness (including patient satisfaction, patient experiences), and patient safety for hospitalized patients experiencing pain. Analysis followed a general inductive approach, where researchers identified themes related to the research questions using an open coding technique. They discussed and reached consensus on all codes, and extracted several preliminary themes. The analysis was supported by NVivo software. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The following themes emerged: (1) complex decision-making process to prescribe opioids for hospitalized patients; (2) the role of objective findings in prescribing decisions; (3) bargaining process in prescribing opioids; (4) balancing patient-centeredness and patient safety for selected populations; (5) opioids are the predominant medications for pain care. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Clinicians’ decision to prescribe opioids for nonsurgical hospitalized patients is based on multiple factors, including patient’s condition, patient’s preference for pain medications, or standard hospital’s pain care regimen. Interventions that improve clinicians’ ability to prescribe opioids may be needed to improve delivery of patient-centered and safe pain care.


2443
Attitudes and preferences for return of results from next-generation sequencing Matthew Neu, Jaimie Richards and Sara J. Knight University of Alabama at Birmingham OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Objectives: Decreasing costs and increasing evidence for clinical utility have contributed to whole genome sequencing (WGS) becoming a clinical reality. While previous studies have surveyed the attitudes of patients and community members towards specific gene tests, an emerging literature has begun to describe the preferences of diverse recipients for WGS results. In this study, we sought to identify and synthesize the quantitative evidence on preferences for results from WGS using a systematic review of the literature. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We conducted a search of articles on PubMed including subject index terms WGS, whole exome sequencing, genome sequencing, secondary findings, incidental findings, attitudes, preferences, choices, utilities, stated-preferences, discrete choice experiment, and willingness-to-pay. We conducted 11 formal searches to refine the strategy and conducted a final search in December 2017. Duplicates were eliminated and a title and abstract review was conducted to select articles meeting inclusion criteria. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Our search strategy identified 79 publications meeting initial search criteria with 30 manuscripts meeting inclusion criteria. Of these, most studies were conducted with patientparticipants enrolled in existing sequencing studies, while few engaged members of the general public. Of the studies conducted on patients, most were on the medical setting of cancer and related syndromes. The earliest publication date of a manuscript meeting our inclusion criteria was in 2012, yet the majority were published in 2015 or later. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Between 2012 and 2015, we saw an increasing focus in the medical literature on understanding public and patient preferences for return of results from WGS and WES. Both public and patient populations participating in surveys expressed preferences for receiving results from next-generation sequencing, even if the results are secondary or incidental findings unrelated to the primary indication for sequencing. A primary factor related to patient interest in incidental or secondary findings is the extent to which these results can inform medical intervention. Few studies surveyed representative populationbased samples, and this may be an area for future investigation.

2183
Balancing patient-centeredness and patient safety in the hospitals: The case of pain care and patient satisfaction Olena Mazurenko 1 , Basia Andraka-Christou 2 , Matthew Bair 3 , Areeba Kara 3 and Christopher A. Harle 3 1 Indiana University School of Medicine; 2 Florida University; 3 Indiana University OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This study seeks to understand the relationship between opioid prescribing and patient satisfaction among non-surgical, hospitalized patients. As part of this study, we qualitatively examined challenges in delivering safe and patient-centered care through voices of physicians', and nurses.' METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We collected data through in-person interviews using semi-structured guides tailored to the informant roles. Study participants came from 1 healthcare system located in a mid-Western state. Each interview lasted 30-45 minutes, was audio-recorded with consent, and transcribed for analysis. Two researchers each coded 17 transcripts for discussions around patient-centeredness (including patient satisfaction, patient experiences), and patient safety for hospitalized patients experiencing pain. Analysis followed a general inductive approach, where researchers identified themes related to the research questions using an open coding technique. They discussed and reached consensus on all codes, and extracted several preliminary themes. The analysis was supported by NVivo software. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The following themes emerged: (1) complex decision-making process to prescribe opioids for hospitalized patients; (2) the role of objective findings in prescribing decisions; (3) bargaining process in prescribing opioids; (4) balancing patient-centeredness and patient safety for selected populations; (5) opioids are the predominant medications for pain care. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Clinicians' decision to prescribe opioids for nonsurgical hospitalized patients is based on multiple factors, including patient's condition, patient's preference for pain medications, or standard hospital's pain care regimen. Interventions that improve clinicians' ability to prescribe opioids may be needed to improve delivery of patient-centered and safe pain care.

2412
Cost effectiveness analysis of operative Versus antibiotic management for uncomplicated appendicitis Eric Stulberg 1 , Alexander Zheutlin, Raymond Strobel, Katherine He 2 and Adelyn Beil 2 1 Northwestern University; 2 University of Michigan School of Medicine OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: (1) Evaluate the relative incremental costeffectiveness [cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained] of antibiotics, laparotomy, and laparascopy for the initial treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis.
(2) Detect if the relative incremental cost-effectiveness of each treatment differs by age, namely in pediatric patients, adult patients, and geriatric patients. (3) Use deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings when varying multiple model parameters.

METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Study Population and Analytic Approach:
The population under analysis is a simulated population of those aged 1-90 diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis with computed tomography (CT) in the emergency department. Pregnant women and those younger than 1 year old were excluded from our analysis. We simulated our population through a Markov state-transition simulation model. Using this model, we estimated the lifelong costs and effects on QALYs from the use of antibiotics, laparoscopy, and cambridge.org/jcts 79