A follow-up on Acute Pain Services in Germany compared to international survey data

Acute Pain Services and pain-related patient-reported outcomes in Hungarian hospitals

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain management is an important part of surgical care, where Acute Pain Service offers added value in terms of patient outcomes and costs. The technology, however, has hardly been adopted in Hungary, with only two hospitals operating Acute Pain Service and whose performance has not been evaluated yet. This research compared pain management outcomes of surgical, orthopedic, and traumatology patients in Hungarian hospitals with and without Acute Pain Service.

METHODS

We recruited 348 patients, 120 in the APS group and 228 in the control group, whose experience was surveyed with an adapted version of the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire. The questionnaire covered pain intensity, pain interference with physical and emotional functions, side effects, patient satisfaction, information received, and participation in treatment decisions. The differences were analyzed by Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

The APS group showed better results with lower pain intensity scores regarding worst postoperative pain (χ2 = 18.919, p = 0.0043). They reported less pain interference with activities in bed (χ2 = 21.978, p = 0.0006) and out of bed (χ2 = 14.341, p = 0.0129). Furthermore, patients in the APS group experienced fewer pain-management-related side effects, like nausea (χ2 = 15.240, p = 0.0101), drowsiness (χ2 = 26.965, p = 0.0001), and dizziness (χ2 = 13.980, p = 0.0124). However, patient information (χ2 = 3.480, p = 0.0945) and patient satisfaction (χ2 = 5.781, p = 0.2127) did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm earlier international evidence on the benefits of Acute Pain Service in postoperative pain management and support the wider adoption of the technology in Hungarian hospitals. Nevertheless, close attention should be paid to patient information and involvement as better outcomes alone do not necessarily increase patient satisfaction.

Perioperative pain management models in four European countries: A narrative review of differences, similarities and future directions

There is general agreement that acute pain management is an important component of perioperative medicine. However, there is no consensus on the best model of care for perioperative pain management, mainly because evidence is missing in many aspects. Comparing the similarities and differences between countries might reveal some insights into different organisational models and how they work. Here, we performed a narrative review to describe and compare the structures, processes and outcomes of perioperative pain management in the healthcare systems of four European countries using Donabedian's framework as a guide. Our comparison revealed many similarities, differences and gaps. Different structures of acute pain services in the four countries with no common definition and standards of care were found. Protocols have been implemented in all countries and guidelines in some. If outcome is assessed, it is mainly pain intensity, and many patients experiencing more intense pain than others have common risk factors (e.g. preoperative pain, preoperative opioid intake, female sex and young age). Outcome assessment beyond pain intensity (such as pain-related physical function, which is important for early rehabilitation and recovery) is currently not well implemented. Developing common quality indicators, a European guideline for perioperative pain management (e.g. for patients at high risk for experiencing severe pain and other outcome parameters) and common criteria for acute pain services might pave the way forward for improving acute pain management in Europe. Finally, the education of general and specialist staff should be aligned in Europe, for example, by using the curricula of the European Pain Federation (EFIC).

National review of acute pain service utilization, models of care, and clinical practices within the Veterans Health Administration

INTRODUCTION

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest healthcare network in the USA and has been a national leader in opioid safety for acute pain management. However, detailed information on the availability and characteristics of acute pain services within its facilities is lacking. We designed this project to assess the current state of acute pain services within the VHA.

METHODS

A 50-question electronic survey developed by the VHA national acute pain medicine committee was emailed to anesthesiology service chiefs at 140 VHA surgical facilities within the USA. Data collected were analyzed by facility complexity level and service characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 140 VHA surgical facilities contacted, 84 (60%) completed the survey. Thirty-nine (46%) responding facilities had an acute pain service. The presence of an acute pain service was associated with higher facility complexity level designation. The most common staffing model was 2.0 full-time equivalents, which typically included at least one physician. Services performed most by formal acute pain programs included peripheral nerve catheters, inpatient consult services, and ward ketamine infusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread efforts to promote opioid safety and improve pain management, the availability of dedicated acute pain services within the VHA is not universal. Higher complexity programs are more likely to have acute pain services, which may reflect differential resource distribution, but the barriers to implementation have not yet been fully explored.

Efficacy and safety of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after APS team standardized postoperative pain management: A 6-year experience of an acute pain service in 107802 Chinese patients

There are few studies on the impact of postoperative pain management (such as Acute Pain Service, APS) on the prognosis of patients, especially the research on large samples, even less data on Chinese patients. It is reported that only 25.12 % of hospitals in China have established APS or similar teams, and less than 10 % of them are responsible for the whole process of postoperative analgesia services. Tongji Hospital affiliated to Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology has established a professional APS team led by anesthesiologists (TJ-APS), and has a standardized workflow and management system. Based on the TJ-APS standardized postoperative pain management, the incidence and adverse effects of postoperative pain in different types of surgical patients were analyzed. In total, 107,802 patients receiving intravenous PCA from the Tongji Hospital affiliated to Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology were selected between January 2016 and December 2021, which were under TJ-APS standardized postoperative analgesia process, postoperative analgesia strategy based on the principle of "low opioid, multimodal, specialization and individualization", as well as regular ward rounds and 24-h on call on-duty system. We assessed the incidence and adverse effects of postoperative pain in different types of surgical patients. Based on the TJ-APS standardized postoperative pain management, the incidence of poor postoperative analgesia in patients with intravenous PCA is significantly lower than that reported in the current literature (20 %), and mainly occurs in biliary-pancreatic surgery, extrahepatic surgery and gastrointestinal surgery. The overall incidence of adverse effects was 5.52 %, of which nausea and vomiting was the highest, especially among gynecological tumors and gynecological patients, which were 10.75 % and 8.68 % respectively, but both were lower than the level reported in the current literature (20 %). This APS multimodal management and analgesia process can provide reference and guidance for PCA management of postoperative acute pain.

Evaluating clinical pharmacists' involvement in postoperative acute pain services: a multicenter survey in Guangdong Province, China

Objective: Postoperative pain management is an important part of surgical pharmacy. Postoperative acute pain services in China are in their initial stages. This survey aimed to investigate the attitudes, involvement, and knowledge of clinical pharmacists in China regarding postoperative acute pain services. The results can provide valuable information to guide clinical pharmacists in developing targeted strategies to improve their postoperative acute pain service capabilities. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to the pharmacy departments of 133 grade A tertiary hospitals in Guangdong province, and the responses were collected electronically. Results: 123 completed questionnaires were collected from clinical pharmacists. Although 95.93% of clinical pharmacists believed they should participate in postoperative pain services, only 62.6% reported substantial involvement. Overall satisfaction with the postoperative pain service was 93.5%. Understanding of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid analgesics by clinical pharmacists was comparable (p > 0.05). Furthermore, 98.37% of clinical pharmacists desired systematic learning in postoperative pain management, and 40.65% expressed a strong need. Conclusion: Clinical pharmacists in China demonstrate a positive attitude toward participating in postoperative acute pain services. However, the actual level of involvement was concerning, and the lack of systematic training and well-established work protocols may be contributing factors. Efforts should be made to establish comprehensive and standardized processes and work protocols for postoperative acute pain services and provide systematic and hierarchical professional training to enhance clinical pharmacists' capabilities in postoperative acute pain services.

Shared Decision-Making in Acute Pain Services

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) in acute pain services (APS) is still in its infancies especially when compared to other medical fields.

RECENT FINDINGS

Emerging evidence fosters the value of SDM in various acute care settings. We provide an overview of general SDM practices and possible advantages of incorporating such concepts in APS, point out barriers to SDM in this setting, present common patient decisions aids developed for APS and discuss opportunities for further development. Especially in the APS setting, patient-centred care is a key component for optimal patient outcome. SDM could be included into everyday clinical practice by using structured approaches such as the "seek, help, assess, reach, evaluate" (SHARE) approach, the 3 "MAking Good decisions In Collaboration"(MAGIC) questions, the "Benefits, Risks, Alternatives and doing Nothing"(BRAN) tool or the "the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision-making"(MAPPIN'SDM) as guidance for participatory decision-making. Such tools aid in the development of a patient-clinician relationship beyond discharge after immediate relief of acute pain has been accomplished. Research addressing patient decision aids and their impact on patient-reported outcomes regarding shared decision-making, organizational barriers and new developments such as remote shared decision-making is needed to advance participatory decision-making in acute pain services.

The First Comprehensive Survey of the Practice of Postoperative Pain Management in Hungarian Hospitals - a Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

Pain management is a key issue in health care. Providers adopt promising technological developments, like Acute Pain Service, at differing speeds, with countries, such as the USA and Germany taking the lead. Where Hungary stands is unknown, as the practice of pain management has not yet been comprehensively reviewed in that country.

AIM

To explore the practice of postoperative pain management in Hungarian hospitals by addressing the questions of who is responsible for it, who measures pain and how, what kind of pain relief technologies are used, and who takes care of patients during duty hours.

METHODS

We carried out a survey covering Hungarian hospitals with operational license for surgery, traumatology, orthopedics and anesthesiology between December 2019 and March 2020. The response rate was 72%, and we analyzed 135 questionnaires.

RESULTS

We identified only 2 hospitals with an Acute Pain Service. In the majority of hospitals, the attending physician orders pain relief therapy. During duty hours the surgeon on duty takes care of pain management in 52.1% of the cases. Among pain relief therapies, intravenous infusions (74.1%) and oral medication (67.4%) are the most frequent. Ward nurses measure postoperative pain (77.8%) with unidimensional scales. According to 59.7% of the respondents, pain is not measured and documented at rest. Written protocols are available in 34.4% of the departments.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with other countries, pain management in Hungary lags behind with significant room for improvement. Development and implementation of pain management protocols with appropriate education is the key intervention point.

[Critical incidents in acute pain management-A risk analysis of CIRS reports]

BACKGROUND

Areas of activity with many intersections pose an increased risk for errors and critical incidents. Therefore, procedures for acute pain therapy are potentially associated with an increased risk for adverse patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to identify and grade the risk of critical incidents in the context of acute pain management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The register of the nationwide reporting system critical incident reporting system of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the Medical Center for Quality in Medicine (CIRSmedical Anesthesiology) was screened for incidents concerning pain management. Out of 5365 cases reported nationwide up to 24 March 2020, 508 reports with the selection criterion "pain" could be identified and reviewed and 281 reports (55%) were included in a systematic analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 281 reports most came from anesthesiology departments (94%; 3% from surgery departments and 3% from other departments). The reported cases occurred most frequently on normal wards but a relevant proportion of the reports concerned intermediate and intensive care units or areas covered by a pain service (PS). Based on the description of the incident in the report, an involvement of the PS could be assumed for 42% of the cases. In terms of time, most of the events could be assigned to normal working hours (90%) and working days (84%; weekends 16%). The analyzed reports related to parenteral administration of analgesics (40%) and central (40%) or peripheral regional anesthesia procedures (23%) and 13% of the reports related to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA; multiple answers possible). Most of the events were caused by technical errors, communication deficits and deviations from routine protocols. A relevant number of the cases were based on mix-ups in the administration route, the dosage, or the active agent. About one third of the sources of error were of an organizational nature, 59% of the cases posed a possible vital risk and in 16% of cases patients had vital complications. The risk grading by risk matrix resulted in an extremely high risk in 7%, a high risk in 62%, a moderate risk in 25% and a low risk in 6% of the cases. Comparing risk assessment of events with involvement of different analgesic methods, multiple medication, combination of analgesic methods or involvement of PS showed no significant differences. Likewise, no differences could be identified between the risk assessments of events at different superordinate cause levels. If more than one overriding cause of error had an impact, initially no higher risk profile was found.

CONCLUSION

Incidents in the context of acute pain management can pose high risks for patients. Incidents or near-incidents are mostly related to mistakes and lack of skills of the staff, often due to time pressure and workload as well as to inadequate organization.

Remote transmission monitoring for postoperative perineural analgesia after major orthopedic surgery: A multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

After surgery, patients reported the delay in receiving help as the primary factor for poorly controlled pain. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of patient management through two communication modalities: remote transmission (RT) versus bedside control (BC). We hypothesized that using remote technology for pump programming may provide the best postoperative infusion regimen for the patient's self-assessment of pain and adverse events.

DESIGN

A multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, controlled trial.

SETTING

Anesthesiology department and orthopedic surgery ward at three university hospitals.

PATIENTS

Eighty patients undergoing orthopedic surgery with postoperative perineural patient-controlled analgesia were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Two groups (n = 40 for each group) were formed by randomization. In the postoperative period, perineural analgesia was followed up via an RT system or BC for 72 h.

MEASUREMENTS

A nurse assessed daily pain, sensory and motor blocks and adverse events. Patients completed a questionnaire three times a day and alerted for any problem according to the group (RT system or nurses' follow-up). On the third postoperative day, the nurse removed the catheter, completed the final assessment, and collected the historical data from the pump. A physician's shorter response time to change the patient control analgesia (PCA) program was the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Of the 80 patients, 71 were analyzed (34 were randomized to the RT group and 37 to the BC group). Fifty-eight pump setting changes were noted. Analysis of repeated evaluations shows that mean time (SD) to change the PCA pump settings was significantly lower in the RT group (20 min (22.3 min)) than in the BC group (55.9 min (71.1 min)); mean difference [95% CI], -35.9 min [-74.3 to 2.4]); β estimation [95% CI], -34 [-63 to -6], p = 0.011). Pain relief, sensory and motor blocks did not differ between the groups: β estimation [95% CI], 0.1 [-0.4 to 0.6], p = 0.753; 0.5 [-0.4 to 1.4], p = 0.255; 0.9 [-0.04 to 1.8], p = 0.687, respectively. β = -34 [-63 to -6], p = 0.011). The consumption of ropivacaine, nurse workload and the cost of the analgesia regimen decreased in the RT group. No differences were noted in satisfaction scores or complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The response time for the physician to change the PCA program when necessary was shorter for patients using RT and alerts to the physician were more frequent compared with spot checks by nurses. RT helps to decrease nurses' workload, ropivacaine consumption, and costs but did not affect postoperative pain relief, complication rate, or patient-reported satisfaction score.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

Comité de Protection des Personnes, Sud Méditerranée III, Montpellier-Nîmes, France, registration number EudraCT A01698-35.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT02018068 PROTOCOL: The full trial protocol can be accessed at Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical Research and Statistics Unit, Lapeyronie University Hospital, Avenue Doten G Giraud, Montpellier, France. s-bringuierbranchereau@chu-montpellier.fr.

Acute Pain Service in Hungarian hospitals

Background

Surgical procedures play an increasing role among health technologies to treat diseases. Pain often accompanies such diseases, both as a result of their pathology, but also as the side-effect of the intervention itself, and it is not only a burdensome subjective feeling, but adversely affects the recovery process, can induce complications and increases treatment costs. Acute Pain Service Teams are becoming increasingly widespread in hospitals to address post-operative pain, yet we have so far no data on how many hospitals have actually adopted this technology in Hungary.

Objectives

The main objectives of our study were to assess the prevalence of Acute Pain Service Teams, map their structure and operation, as well as to understand the barriers and conducive factors of their establishment in Hungarian hospitals.

Methods

We carried out a survey among the 72 hospitals with surgical departments. The questionnaire was filled in by 52 providers, which gave us a response rate of 72.2%.

Results

Our results show, that only two of the responding hospitals have Acute Pain Service Teams albeit their structure and operation are in line with the literature. In the 50 hospitals without such teams, financing difficulties and human resources shortages are mentioned to be the most important obstacles of their establishment, but the lack of initiative and interest on the part of the specialities concerned are also an important barrier.

Conclusions

Lagging behind the more affluent EU member states, but similarly to other Central and Eastern European countries, Acute Pain Service has been hardly adopted by Hungarian hospitals. Hungarian health professionals know the technology and would support its wider introduction, if the technical feasibility barriers could be overcome. Health policy should play a more active role to facilitate change in this area, the investment in which promises a substantial return in terms of health gains and cost savings.

[Safety and monitoring of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia : Clinical practice in German hospitals]

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) is a well-established technique in acute pain management and available in most German hospitals. Despite its widespread use, information on current clinical practice is limited. This investigation evaluated clinical practice and monitoring as well as PCIA-associated adverse events and critical incidents in German hospitals.

METHODS

An invitation to participate in this online-survey was sent to 995 heads of anesthesiology departments belonging to the "German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine".

RESULTS

Of the departments receiving the link, 244 took part (response rate 25%). PCIA was used in 193 of these hospitals (79%). All the following statements relate to the hospitals in which PCIA was used. Piritramide was the most frequently used opioid. In parallel with PCIA, additional nonopioid analgesics were used in 94% of the hospitals, and in 38%, additional slow-release oral opioids were used. Parenteral opioids were administered by the ward staff in 4% of the hospitals. In 75% of hospitals, there were standardized indications for PCIA therapy, with almost two thirds of respondents stating that PCIA was the technique of second choice if regional procedures were contraindicated or failed. In all, 76% of the hospitals had an acute pain service. Twenty-four percent of the hospitals regularly used PCIA in non-surgical patients. In pediatric patients, PCIA was used in 62 hospitals (32%). Only 31% of the hospitals reported the use of standardized protocols for the specific monitoring of patients' vital signs on general wards, exceeding general care. Of the department, 158 (82%) reported adverse events in connection with the use of PCIA within the six-month period preceding the survey (most frequently due to patients' noncompliance [52%], dislocated intravenous lines [41%], communication errors [16%], administration of additional analgesics [16%] and/ or sedatives [14%], problems with the pump [16%], programming errors [9%], incorrect opioid concentration in the reservoir [8%], non-observance of contraindications [7%], incorrect dosing [6%] and self-dosing by the patient [4%] or by third parties [3%], filling the reservoir with thewrong medication [2%]; and other problems [5%]). Only 35 of the hospitals (18%) reported no problems associated with PCIA therapy. Seventy-five of the 193 respondents (39%) stated that at least one critical incident had occurred in the context of the use of PCIA. This resulted in a total of 335 cases out of an estimate of 50.000 patients treated with PCIA. The respondents classified these as follows: I) 273 incidents requiring a prolonged stay in the recovery room, but without further complications, II) 58 requiring transfer to the intensive care unit, but without further complications, III) three resulting in permanent harm to the patient and IV) one resulting in the death of the patient. A comparison of the monitoring standards for PCIA showed that critical incidents were reported less frequently in hospitals with less intensive monitoring, and more frequently in hospitals with higher monitoring standards.

CONCLUSION

PCIA is a frequently used analgesic technique in German hospitals. There were many differences in how PCIA therapy was applied and monitored on general wards. Adverse events occurred to a significant extent, with a considerable part of them, which might be preventable. Critical incidents were perceived more often when standards for monitoring on general wards were higher. Consented current recommendations regarding treatment and monitoring standards as well as the systematic recording of complications when using PCIA are pending.

[Pain management in departments of internal medicine : Results of a national survey on structures and processes of care]

Hintergrund und Ziel der Arbeit

Seit Jahren werden Defizite der Qualität der Schmerztherapie im Krankenhaus beschrieben. Ziel der vorliegenden Untersuchung war es, Strukturen und Prozesse des Schmerzmanagements in internistischen Abteilungen darzustellen.

Material und Methoden

Die Datenerfassung erfolgte mittels eines standardisierten Telefoninterviews (nichtuniversitäre Abteilungen); bei universitären Abteilungen separat mittels eines Onlinefragebogens (SurveyMonkey®).

Ergebnisse

Daten von 139 nichtuniversitären Abteilungen (Rücklauf: 21 %) und 33 universitären Abteilungen (davon 21 vollständig beantwortete Fragebögen, Rücklauf 17 % bzw. 11 %) wurden erhoben. 441 von 619 kontaktierten nichtuniversitären Abteilungen lehnten die Teilnahme ausdrücklich ab, am häufigsten mit der Begründung, es bestünde kein Interesse am Thema Schmerzmanagement. In den 172 teilnehmenden Einrichtungen wurde Schmerz als eigenständiger Parameter in 89 % der nichtuniversitären Abteilungen (96 % universitär) regelmäßig während der Visite erfasst; schriftliche Behandlungsstandards zur Schmerztherapie lagen in 57 % der nichtuniversitären Abteilungen vor (54 % universitär). In 76 % der nichtuniversitären Krankenhäuser (100 % universitär) stand auch für die internistischen Patienten ein Akutschmerzdienst zur Mitbehandlung zur Verfügung, schriftliche Vereinbarungen zur Zusammenarbeit lagen bei 35 % vor (18 % universitär).

Diskussion

Die berichtete Umsetzung des Schmerzmanagements war in den teilnehmenden Abteilungen gut. Gleichwohl sind die Ergebnisse bei niedriger Teilnahme und häufiger Ablehnung mit der Begründung einer fehlenden Relevanz nur eingeschränkt aussagekräftig. Die erfassten Daten reflektieren daher vermutlich eine erhebliche positive Selektion und sind nicht als repräsentativ für das Schmerzmanagement in der inneren Medizin zu werten.

A survey of acute pain service in Canadian teaching hospitals

BACKGROUND

The first national survey to ascertain the prevalence, structure, and functioning of the APS in Canadian university affiliated hospitals was conducted in 1991. This is a follow-up survey to assess the current status of the APS in Canada.

METHODS

We requested completion of a 26-question survey from lead personnel of the APS teams or Anesthesia departments of Canadian teaching hospitals.

RESULTS

Among the 32 centers that were contacted, 21 (65.6%) responded. Of these respondents, 18 (85.7%) indicated that they have a structured APS (72.22% adults, 5.56% pediatrics, 22.22% mixed). Among the 18 centers with an APS, 16 of the services are led by an anesthesiologist. Eight centers (44.44%) have a regional anesthesia group, of which five (27.75%) have a regional anesthesia group that is distinct from the APS team. Nine centers (50%) offer ambulatory nerve catheter analgesia after discharge home. Fifteen centers (83.33%) use standardized order sets, and 13 centers (72.22%) use an electronic record for APS. More than 50% of the centers use intravenous lidocaine and ketamine as a part of their multimodal analgesia.

CONCLUSION

Most Canadian teaching hospitals do have a functioning APS. This survey has the potential to generate research questions about the availability of standardized and advanced acute pain management in Canada's teaching hospitals.

An Update on Resources, Procedures and Healthcare Provision in Pain Units: A Survey of Spanish Practitioners

Multidisciplinary pain treatment units are recommended to provide comprehensive diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain, a complex clinical syndrome and one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. The objective of this study was to provide updated results on the situation of pain treatment units in Spain and to determine compliance with recommendations proposed by de Spanish Ministry of Health (SMH). A cross-sectional, prospective, multicenter survey was performed, collecting data on resources, procedures and healthcare provision. Between March and May 2019, the Spanish Pain Society sent an invitation letter to 183 pain units with a link to the questionnaire. Sixty-nine units from 13 regions agreed to participate. According to the International Association for the Study of Pain criteria, only 12 units were classified as multidisciplinary pain centers. Most (95.7%) were in hospitals, 82.6% from the public sector, and 46.4% had protocols to coordinate with primary care. Interviewees rated the adequacy of facilities at 6.3 (from 0 to 10). Moreover, 67% of interviewees found that there were insufficient staff, with no mental health professionals, physical therapists or social workers in 49.3%, 87.0% and 97.1% units, respectively. Only 24 pain units had a day hospital, 44.9% offered psychological interventions, and 79.7% supported teaching and research activities. Results suggest that a small proportion of Spanish pain units meet the national standards for multidisciplinary pain units proposed by the SMH.

[Staff and organizational requirements for pain services in hospitals : A recommendation from the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine]

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches.With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments.

Does an acute pain service improve the perception of postoperative pain management in patients undergoing lower limb surgery? A prospective controlled non-randomized study

Background and Aim:

An acute pain service (APS) has been running in our institute since April 2013 and is managed by the Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care. However, it is not clear to what extent the patients feel benefited from the APS. The aim of the study was to compare the perception of postoperative pain management in patients receiving care under APS with those receiving routine postoperative pain relief following lower limb surgery.

Material and Methods:

This was a prospective, hospital-based, controlled non-randomized study. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades I–III patients with age 18–75 years undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery were prospectively recruited into APS (index group) or routine postoperative care (control group) (n = 55 each). Postoperatively, American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire-Revised (APS-POQ-R) and Short Form (SF-12) were used to evaluate the outcome of postoperative pain management at 24 h and health-related quality of life after 4 weeks respectively.

Results:

Both groups were comparable in terms of demographic data. Patients in the index group had statistically significant better perception of care than the control group. Index group scored significantly higher than control group on median patient satisfaction score (9; interquartile range [IQR] [7–10] vs. 5 [3–6]; P < 0.001). In index group, there was significant reduction of worst pain in first 24 h along with decreased frequency of severe pain.

Conclusion:

Implementation of acute pain service plays an important role in improving the quality of postoperative pain relief, perception of care, and patient satisfaction.

[Management of patients with chronic pain in acute and perioperative medicine : An interdisciplinary challenge]

Chronic pain is a frequent comorbidity of patients in hospitals and has an influence on the clinical course and the duration of hospitalization. There is a need to have a better understanding of chronic pain as a comorbidity and it should be considered to a greater extent in understanding diseases, in treatment concepts and hospital structures to ensure a resource-oriented and high-quality care. This begins on admission by identifying pre-existing pain and related risk factors with the medical history and taking these into account in the treatment regimen. A multimodal treatment approach that involves medicinal, educational, psychological and physiotherapeutic expertise is required in these patients. A unimodal approach in the treatment is not effective. A pain physician should be involved in the treatment team as early as possible. Furthermore, psychological joint supervision should be available for these patients as several studies have demonstrated positive perioperative effects of psychological approaches on the treatment in this patient group.

[Delegation of medical activities in acute pain therapy]

Acute pain management is an interprofessional and interdisciplinary task and requires a good and trustful cooperation between stakeholders. Despite provisions in Germany according to which medical treatment can only be rendered by a formally qualified physician ("Arztvorbehalt"), a physician does not have to carry out every medical activity in person. Under certain conditions, some medical activities can be delegated to medical auxiliary personnel but they need to be (1) instructed, (2) supervised and (3) checked by the physician himself; however, medical history, diagnostic assessment and evaluation, indications, therapy planning (e.g. selection, dosage), therapeutic decisions (e. g. modification or termination of therapy) and obtaining informed consent cannot be delegated. With respect to drug therapy, monitoring of the therapy remains the personal responsibility of the physician, while the actual application of medication can be delegated. From a legal perspective, the current practice needs to be stressed about what is within the mandatory requirements and what is not when medical activities are delegated to non-medical staff. The use of standards of care improves treatment quality but like any medical treatment it must be based on the physician's individual assessment and indications for each patient and requires personal contact between physician and patient. Delegation on the ward and in acute pain therapy requires the authorization of the delegator to give instructions in the respective setting. The transfer of non-delegable duties to non-medical personnel is regarded as medical malpractice.

A survey of postoperative pain treatments and unmet needs

More than 300 million patients undergo surgery worldwide each year. Pain associated with these procedures is associated with short- and long-term negative sequelae for patients, healthcare providers, and healthcare systems. The following chapter is a review of the reality of postoperative pain management in everyday clinical routine based on survey- and registry-derived data with a focus on care in adults. Between 30% and up to 80% of patients report moderate to severe pain in the days after surgery. Structures, processes, and outcomes vary widely between hospitals and indicate gaps between evidence-based findings and practice. Pain assessment is not effectively implemented in many hospitals and should consider cultural differences. Few data exist on the situation of pain management in low- and middle-income countries, indicating lack of resources and available medication in many of these areas. Certain types of surgery as well as demographic and clinical factors are associated with increased risk of severe postoperative pain.

Staff and organizational requirements for pain services in hospitals : A recommendation from the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches.With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments.

A survey of acute pain services in the UK

The organisational state of inpatient pain management in UK hospitals is difficult to determine. We sent an electronic questionnaire to 209 acute pain service leads throughout the UK. Questions were about staffing and service provision. We received 141 responses (67%); 47% of all UK hospitals. Each service was responsible for a median (IQR [range]) of 566 (400-839 [120-2800]) beds. Each acute pain specialist nurse was responsible for 299 (238-534 [70-1923]) beds. The mean (SD) number of consultant hours per week was 5.54 (4.62), delivered by a median of 1.0 (1.0-2.5 [0.2-7.0]) consultant. Overnight cover was provided by 20 (15%) acute pain services, and weekend cover by 39 (29%). Acute pain services commonly (in 50 (35%) hospitals) had roles in addition to acute pain management. Most teams (105, (77%)) reviewed medical patients and patients with chronic pain (in 131, (96%) teams). Half of the services (56, (49%)), reported that they were part of an integrated acute and chronic pain service, however, 83 (59%) did not have any members who work in chronic pain clinics. The majority (79, (70%)) were able to access a nominated chronic pain consultant for advice. Provision of acute pain services throughout the UK is highly variable. The majority do not meet core UK standards.

Non-invasive patient-controlled analgesia in the management of acute postoperative pain in the hospital setting

OBJECTIVE

Acute postoperative pain is experienced by the majority of hospitalized patients undergoing surgical procedures, with many reporting inadequate pain relief and/or high levels of dissatisfaction with their pain management. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) ensures patient involvement in acute pain control, a key component for implementing a quality management system. This narrative article overviews the clinical evidence for conventional PCA and briefly discusses new, non-invasive PCA systems, namely the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) and the fentanyl iontophoretic transdermal system (FITS).

METHODS

A Medline literature search ("patient-controlled analgesia" and "acute postoperative pain") was conducted to 1 April 2017; results from the main clinical trials are discussed. Additional literature was identified from the reference lists of cited publications.

RESULTS

Moderate to low quality evidence supports opioid-based intravenous PCA as an efficacious alternative to non-patient-controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain. However, despite the benefits of PCA, conventional intravenous PCA is limited by system-, drug- and human-related issues. The non-invasive SSTS and FITS have demonstrated good efficacy and safety in placebo- and intravenous morphine PCA-controlled trials, and are associated with high patient/healthcare practitioner satisfaction/ease of care ratings and offer early patient mobilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based guidelines for acute postoperative pain management support the use of multimodal regimens in many situations. As effective and safe alternatives to conventional PCA, and with the added benefits of being non-invasive, easy to use and allowing early patient mobilization, the newer PCA systems may complement multimodal approaches, or potentially replace certain regimens, in hospitalized patients with acute postoperative pain.

Management of postoperative pain in Spain: a nationwide survey of practice

BACKGROUND

Although the need for structured assessment and management of acute postoperative pain has been recognized, practices and responsibilities vary between and within hospitals and countries. We sought to determine current pain management practices in Spanish hospitals with and without acute pain services (APSs) or acute pain management programmes (APMPs) and compare them to practices reported for 1997-1998.

METHODS

Members of the Spanish Pain Society and APS/APMP heads were asked to respond to a survey. Responses were stratified by hospital size (< 200 or ≥ 200 beds) and APS/APMP presence or not. Categorical variables were described by percentages and the 95% confidence interval and continuous ones by the median and interquartile range.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 42.4% of hospitals with ≥ 200 beds (vs. 9.6% of the smaller ones). We fully analysed only data for the larger hospitals, 57.7% of which had an APS or APMP. Full-time pain physicians were on staff in 28.6% of large hospitals; 25% had full-time nurses. Patients received written information about postoperative pain in 34.8% of APS/APMP hospitals, and 72% of them recorded pain assessments routinely. Protocols reflected interdepartmental consensus in 80.8%; training in postoperative pain was organised in 54%. Respondents thought pain was well or very well managed in 46.4%. In APS/APMP hospitals the following results had improved: provision of written information for patients (58.5% vs. 0%), the recording of pain assessments (93% vs. 43.8%), consensus on a pain scale (92.5% vs. 41.9%), use of protocols (99.7% vs. 55.2%), analysis of quality indicators (52.8% vs. 15.4%), training (73% vs. 26.9%), and respondents' satisfaction with pain management in their hospital (68.6% vs. 9.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of an APS or APMP is associated with better results on indicators of quality of acute postoperative pain management.

[Role of anesthesiology in pain medicine and palliative care treatment in German hospitals : Survey of department heads of anesthesiology on treatment structures]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this analysis was to describe the role of anesthesiology departments in pain medicine and palliative care services in German hospitals.

METHOD

In the year 2012, all heads of departments of anesthesiology registered with the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine were surveyed about structures of pain medicine and palliative care services in their hospitals using a standardized postal questionnaire.

RESULTS

Out of 408 returned questionnaires (response rate 47%) 403 could be evaluated. Of the hospitals 58% had a designated pain medicine service, in 36 (9%) of the hospitals this was organized as an independent department and in 195 (57%) as part of another department, mostly the department of anesthesiology. The "pain clinic" as an outpatient service was the most common form of structure for pain medicine services (41%). Inpatient pain medicine units were available in 77 (19%) of the hospitals and a partial inpatient unit in the form of a day hospital in 26 (7%) of the hospitals. For the care of inpatients from other departments, there was an intrahospital pain consultation service in 166 of the hospitals, which was the only structure for pain medicine in 32 of the 231 hospitals that reported having a designated pain medicine service. In 160 pain medicine services anesthesiologists were the only medical practitioners and in a further 18 both anesthesiologists and other specialists were available (orthopedist/orthopedic surgeons n = 6, internal medicine n = 4, psychiatrist n = 2, general practitioner = 1 and neurologist n = 1). Only two hospitals had no anesthesiologist in the pain medicine team and for the remaining 51 hospitals no information was provided. In 189 of the 231 hospitals with pain medicine services, there was at least 1 physician with special qualifications in pain management. In 97 (44%) of the hospitals psychologists were part of the team with 53 having at least 1 psychologist with a special qualification in chronic pain management. Of the hospitals, 16% had a specialized department for palliative care, in 32% a specialized palliative care service was part of another department, which was the department of anesthesiology in 30%. Of the hospitals 56% had a palliative care consultation service, 41% had a specialized inpatient palliative care unit, 6% an outpatient clinic, 4% a day hospital and in 16% a specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) serving the community was incorporated. Inpatient consultation services and the SOPC were more common when the department of anesthesiology was involved in the palliative care services.

CONCLUSION

In German hospitals, the departments of anesthesiology make a significant contribution to the provision of both pain medicine and palliative care services. Nevertheless, the respective structures of care are often incomplete or even lacking. There were shortcomings in terms of organization and qualification of the team in pain medicine services (e.g. no doctor with special qualifications in pain management or no psychologist). Palliative care services are more often organized as independent departments than as pain medicine services. Engagement of the anesthesiology department in palliative care is linked to a broader scope of the services provided, which might reflect the capacity of many anesthesiologists to work in an interdisciplinary manner and across interfaces.

The Quality of Postoperative Pain Therapy in German Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Many patients in German hospitals complain of inadequate treatment of their postoperative pain. Hospital-related structural and procedural variables may affect pain perception and patient satisfaction. We studied the association of individual variables with outcome quality.

METHODS

Data from the years 2011 to 2014 from the world's largest acute pain registry (QUIPS) were evaluated. The analysis was performed with mixed linear regression models.

RESULTS

We studied registry data from 138 German hospitals concerning four commonly performed types of operations (total number of operations, 21 114) and found that the intensity of pain, functional impairment, and satisfaction with postoperative pain therapy were all highly variable from one hospital to another. Patients in university hospitals complained more often than those in standard care facilities of highly intense pain (odds ratio [OR] 2.44; 95% con - fidence interval [CI] [1.18; 5.04]) and dissatisfaction (OR 3.58 [1.85; 6.93]). In specialized centers as well, pain intensity (OR 1.39 [1.06; 1.83]) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.59 [1.25; 2.02]) were higher. Pain-related limitation of movement was also reported more commonly in university hospitals (OR 2.12 [0.87; 5.16]) and specialized centers (OR 1.87 [1.33; 2.65]) than in standard care facilities. Less pain-related limitation of movement and higher satisfaction were reported in hospitals in which pain was documented in the patients' charts and the patients felt adequately informed about the treatment options.

CONCLUSION

The current state of postoperative pain therapy leaves much room for improvement. Quality indicators in the field of acute pain medicine might help improve patient care.

Current practice of acute pain management in children-a national follow-up survey in Germany

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to summarize the current standard practices for acute pain management in children in Germany and the implementation of these procedures. The last survey on acute pain management in children was performed in 1999, highlighting the need for an up to date review.

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to German departments of anesthesiology (n = 885), asking for structures and processes of acute pain management in children. Results were compared between hospitals with and without an acute pain service and with and without a pediatric department.

RESULTS

Of the 407 responding hospitals (response rate of 46%), 342 treated children younger than 14 years. These were considered for analysis. Of the 342 hospitals, 42% contained either a general pediatric department or a department of pediatric surgery, and the majority of the responding hospitals had an acute pain service (83%). Pain intensities were measured at least once per shift in 40% of the institutions, and at least once or twice a day in 27%. Of the institutions, 31% did not document pain scores regularly, without any difference between hospitals with or without a pediatric department. Standard operating procedures for acute pain management existed in 68% of the hospitals, with large differences in content and length. Opioids were administered to children in 85% of the hospitals. Nonopioid analgesics were the first choice baseline analgesics in most hospitals. Peripheral regional and epidural analgesia were performed in children in 18% and 8% of the hospitals, respectively (21%/16% with a paediatric department, 16%/1% without; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Current practice of pediatric pain management varied widely and the recommendations of guidelines, like regular pain management, were frequently not met. However, improvements could be observed since 1999, for example, an increase in regular pain measurements (4% vs 67%). Furthermore, pain management in hospitals running a pediatric department had a higher degree of organization, and more sophisticated analgesic techniques.