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

Description, Organization, and Individual Postgraduate Perspectives of One Italian School of Anesthesia and Intensive Care

INTRODUCTION

The study aims to describe the organization of one accredited school of Anesthesia and Intensive Care of University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy. The analysis of the post-graduation period aims to measure the time-to-first job, the perceived challenges, what postgraduate residents choose as first employ, and the overall satisfaction rating of a cohort of residents completing their training until 2017 with the usual and standard training program.

METHODS

We collected organization and administrative records of the five-year program of the A-IC School of 4 cohorts of residents who joined from 2009 to 2012 and we performed a survey. We also analyzed the differences among school cohorts during the medical training. In the end, it was investigated as a reason to choose hub hospitals or not.

RESULTS

The focus of the training activities revolved around the operating room with a mean of 30.41 ± 6.6 (sd), months followed by Intensive care with 17.29 ± 4.49 (sd) months. Although 7.5% of the respondents were not fully satisfied of the school's program, 89.7% of residents rated their training as adequate. In fact, 97.2% respondents reported they could overcome the professional challenges they faced after graduation. The multiple variables logistic regression showed a correlation among working in hub hospitals and training performed in university hospitals with a p value of 0.015.

CONCLUSION

This paper describes the postgraduation period. This point should be examined as an integral part of the accreditation procedure. Knowing the satisfaction rate, perception autonomy, and which type of hospitals are preferred can measure the education training capacity of a postgraduation school.

[The guidelines of the Federal Joint Committee on acute pain management : Background and consequences for the practice in hospitals]

The quality of postoperative pain therapy in Germany shows a heterogeneous treatment practice and large differences in quality between individual institutions, The patient representatives in the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) have therefore decisively campaigned for many years that instruments of non-legislative standards are employed in order to noticeably improve the quality of perioperative pain therapy for patients in Germany. As a result of these efforts, in October 2020 a binding specification for internal quality management was included in the quality management guidelines (QM-RL) by the G‑BA. This describes in concrete terms the structural and procedural requirements for an internal quality management of acute pain for all institutions in which operations and comparable potentially painful interventions are carried out. This article describes the content of this regulation and the resulting consequences for the institutions, the medical and administrative management and especially the role of anesthesia.

[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.

[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.

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.