[Standardized treatment protocols in acute postoperative pain therapy: analysis of contents of standardized medicinal concepts]

Assessment and management of post-surgical pain in adult patients undergoing thoracic surgery: a best practice implementation project

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Effectiv. e management of post-operative pain improves the condition of patients and reduces their hospital stay. This, in turn, has an impact on caregivers, professionals, and institutions and, as such, is considered a primary indicator of quality. The aim of this project was to improve the assessment and management of post-surgical pain in thoracic surgery patients.

METHODS

This implementation project was conducted in a thoracic surgery unit of a tertiary hospital in Spain. The project was guided by the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework, which is grounded in an audit, feedback, and re-audit strategy. A baseline audit was conducted with 44 patients, and barriers to best practice were identified. Strategies were then implemented to improve the assessment and management of post-operative pain. Three follow-up audits were performed using nine audit criteria with 34, 40, and 46 patients, respectively.

RESULTS

The baseline audit revealed poor compliance with best practices. After implementing strategies to address areas of non-compliance, health education for patients and caregivers improved up to 80%, while the measurement of pain upon admission and post-surgery rose to 91%. However, patients undergoing pre-operative assessment to guide their post-operative pain management at hospital discharge remained below 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a methodology to implement best practices, together with clinical audits, improved compliance with the use of validated scales to assess and manage pain. A multidisciplinary approach improves the quality of care received by patients and contributes to their recovery.

SPANISH ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A240.

[Principles of acute pain therapy-An overview taking special features in the patient collective of ophthalmology into consideration]

For many years the quality of perioperative pain management in general has been repeatedly reported as inadequate and there is significant evidence to indicate that this is also true after surgical procedures in ophthalmology. The patient population in ophthalmology is quite challenging due to numerous comorbidities and a high average age resulting in numerous contraindications and organ dysfunctions and requiring special knowledge to ensure high quality acute pain management. The following overview covers basic knowledge of acute pain management, with a particular focus on analgesic approaches and the specifics of the patient population and the associated limitations in terms of analgesic and co-analgesic pharmacological options.

[Resolution of the Federal Joint Committee on the mandatory introduction and implementation of acute pain management concepts-Importance and consequences for ophthalmology]

Patient-centered and adequate postoperative pain management is an important part of a modern treatment concept and should also be standard in ophthalmology. Due to the "Regulation on the mandatory introduction and implementation of acute pain management concepts for adequate postoperative pain therapy" prescribed by the Federal Joint Committee of the German statutory healthcare system (G-BA), hospitals and outpatient facilities have been required to have regulations on pain management in place since 9 December 2020. It is very likely that the need of pain management in ophthalmic surgery has been systematically underestimated so far and studies on postoperative pain hardly exist. In the opinion of the authors, the decision represents an opportunity to pay more attention to the topic and to develop standards for ophthalmology as well. This article explains the G‑BA decision and the resulting consequences for ophthalmic surgical institutions.

[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.

[Pain Management in Hospitals - Current Practice, Quality and Organisation in Non-surgical Medical Care]

For many years now, effective pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches for acute and chronic pain exist, as well as organisational strategies for their implementation in hospitals. Nevertheless, there remain considerable deficits in pain management and the portion of patients with severe or long-lasting pain in non-surgical units is often high. There is a considerable potential to improve quality and structures of pain mangement in non-surgical hospital settings in Germany. Recently, legal requirements to establish a structured perioperative pain management were introduced. This should not be seen as a signal that pain management is less important in non-surgical disciplines. On the contrary - it should raise awareness for more clinical and health services research to further develop and validate appropriate approaches and concepts to improve pain treatment in this field.

[Use of rapid-onset fentanyl preparations beyond indication : A random questionnaire survey among congress participants and pain physicians]

BACKGROUND

Despite publicised advice and warnings, there are only scant data on the non-indicated prescription of rapid-onset preparations of fentanyl (ROF) in non-cancer pain (NCP). Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation.

OBJECTIVE

Initiated by the Working Group Cancer Pain and supported by the German Pain Society, a random sample survey was conducted to assess the non-indicated use of ROF.

METHODS

The survey addressed attendees of pain conferences who were given the option to fill in the questionnaires outside the conference or online. Primary endpoints of the structured questionnaire were quantitative and qualitative items with regard to the prescription of ROF, while secondary endpoints were opioid-induced side effects.

RESULTS

Obtaining a response rate of 44% (132/300) and an additional 51 online questionnaires revealed that 165 (90%) respondents had knowledge of non-indicated prescriptions or were involved in these. Of these, 65% were clinicians and 17% worked in an outpatient capacity. In all, 22% were trained pain or palliative physicians. Approximately 1205 patients were assessed indirectly. The main causes for dispensing ROF included NCP entities such as back pain (44%), neuropathic pain (33%), head or facial pain (12%), and dyspnea (5%) in cancer pain or lack of break-through pain or basic medication (44%). Sedation (32%), nausea/vomiting (31%), constipation (16%) and insufficient analgesia (31%) were the mostly commonly reported adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Despite the non-ambiguous indication for ROF, physicians often demonstrate inappropriate prescription behaviour. Iatrogenic misuse of ROF should be minimized. The rates of adverse effects of ROF seems to be in line with other opioids.

The effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative pain management compared to PCIA : A cohort analysis

Background

Standard protocols or algorithms are considered essential to ensure adequate analgesia. Germany has widely adopted postoperative protocols for pain management including oral opioids for rescue medication, but the effectiveness of such protocols has only been evaluated longitudinally in a before and after setting. The aim of this cohort analysis was to compare the effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative management of pain to the gold standard of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA).

Material and methods

This study compared cohorts of patients of two prospective observational studies undergoing elective total hip replacement. After surgery patients received piritramide to achieve a pain score of ≤3 on the numeric rating scale (NRS 0–10). A protocol was started consisting of oral long-acting oxycodone and ibuprofen (basic analgesia). Cohort 1 (C1, 126 patients) additionally received an oral opioid rescue medication (hydromorphone) when reporting pain >3 on the NRS. Cohort 2 (C2, 88 patients) was provided with an opioid by PCIA (piritramide) for opioid rescue medication. Primary endpoints were pain intensity at rest, during movement, and maximum pain intensity within the first 24 h postoperative. Secondary endpoints were opioid consumption, functional outcome and patient satisfaction with pain management.

Results

Pain during movement and maximum pain intensity were higher in C1 compared to C2: pain on movement median 1st–3rd quartile: 6 (3.75–8) vs. 5 (3–7), p = 0.023; maximum pain intensity: 7 (5–9) vs. 5 (3–8), p = 0.008. There were no differences in pain intensity at rest or between women and men in either group. The mean opioid consumption in all patients (combined PACU, baseline, and rescue medication; mean ± SD mg ME) was 126.6 ± 51.8 mg oral ME (median 120 (87.47–154.25) mg ME). Total opioid consumption was lower in C1 than C2 (117 ± 46 mg vs 140 ± 56 mg, p = 0.002) due to differences in rescue opioids (C1: 57 ± 37 mg ME, C2: 73 ± 43 mg ME, p = 0.006, Z = −2.730). Basic analgesia opioid use was comparable (C1: 54 ± 31 mg ME, C2: 60 ± 36 mg ME, p = 0.288, Z = −1.063). There were no differences in respect to the addition of non-opioids and reported quality of mobilization, sleep, frequency of nausea and vomiting, or general satisfaction with pain management.

Conclusion

In this study PCIA provided a better reduction of pain intensity, when compared to a standardized protocol with oral opioid rescue medication. This effect was associated with increased opioid consumption. There were no differences in frequencies of opioid side effects. This study was a retrospective analysis of two cohorts of a major project. As with all retrospective studies, our analysis has several limitations to consider. Data can only represent the observation of clinical practice. It cannot reflect the quality of a statement of a randomized controlled trial. Observational studies do not permit conclusions on causal relationships.

[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.

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.