[Implementation of standardized postoperative pain therapy for orthopaedic patients. Comparison between unsystematic and standardized pain therapy]

[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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Standardized treatment approaches can improve the quality of the management of acute postoperative pain.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to describe the content and structure of currently implemented standards for the management of acute postoperative pain in German hospitals and to better define the concept of a treatment standard for acute pain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Written standardized treatment protocols from 68 hospitals for the management of acute postoperative pain were analyzed. The evaluation was based on the layout of processes, the baseline and rescue or on-demand analgesic medication and safety mechanisms.

RESULTS

A treatment standard per hospital separated for adults (68 standards) and children (27 standards) was identified and analyzed. A baseline medication was provided in all standards for adults and in 89% for children. Of the 95 standards 68% routinely combined opioids and non-opioids as a basis (78% for adults and 42% for children). A way to adapt the baseline medication was described more often in standards for adults. Of the standards for adults 91% (85% for children) contained provisions for rescue or on-demand analgesia and half of them (both adults and children) included an immediate-release opioid formulation, which was readily available. For adults the availability was regulated by a predefined process in 29% of the standards (8% for children). In cases of persisting pain, repetition of the rescue medication was generally possible in 63% of adult standards (54% for children) but within 1 h after the first dose in only 43% (30% for children). Intervention limitations for application of the rescue medication (e.g., a defined score on the numeric rating scale) were set in 63% of adult standards (54% for children). A follow-up assessment of the pain intensity after a rescue medication was only required in approximately half of the standards and safety information or mechanisms were only rarely included.

CONCLUSION

Content, structure and type of the evaluated treatment standards showed a considerable heterogeneity with respect to the availability of rescue and baseline medication. Safety aspects were not addressed in many cases. These findings show that despite the requirements of the German guidelines for treatment of perioperative and posttraumatic pain for treatment standards, there are still no practical recommendations with respect to contents and structure of such standards.

[Perioperative pain therapy in interventions for elbow stiffness]

Conservative treatment and surgical release of a stiff elbow requires correct pain management which should be oriented to the individual needs of the patient. Regional anesthesia in combination with opioids is necessary postoperatively to obtain sufficient pain relief. There is a need for prospective randomized studies to develop an optimal pain therapy concept following operations for elbow stiffness.