[Quality management in acute pain therapy: results from a survey of certified hospitals]

Implementation and maintenance of a pain management quality assurance program at intensive care units: 360 degree feedback of physicians, nurses and patients

Background

Pain management quality assurance programs (PMQP) have been successfully implemented in numerous hospitals across Europe. We aimed to evaluate the medium-term sustainability of a PMQP implemented at intensive care units (ICUs).

Methods

Two surveys, the first in 2012, immediately after introduction of the PMQP, and the second in 2015, were carried out amongst patients, physicians and nurses. Demographic parameters of all participants were assessed. Patients were asked after their pain levels during ICU stay. Staff members answered a questionnaire regarding familiarity with standards and processes of PMQP and self-perception of their knowledge as well as contentment with interdisciplinary communication.

Results

In total (2012/2015), 267 (125/142) patients, 113 (65/48) physicians and 510 (264/246) members of the nursing staff participated. Minimum and maximum pain levels of patients did not differ between both surveys. Patients’ tolerance of pain 24 hours before the survey was better (p = 0.023), and vomiting occurred less often (p = 0.037) in 2015. Physicians’ and nurses’ contentment with the own knowledge about pharmacological pain treatment had increased from 2012 to 2015 (p = 0.002 and 0.004). Satisfaction with communication between nurses and physicians was better in 2015 (p<0.001 and p = 0.002). Familiarity with PMQP standards and processes remained stable in both collectives.

Conclusion

The implementation of our PMQP achieved a high standard of care, guarantying a high patient and staff member satisfaction. Continuous education, ongoing training, regular updates and implementation of feedback-loops ensure continuity, in some parameters even an increase in knowledge and competencies. This is mirrored in high patient and staff member satisfaction.

A systematic review of hospital accreditation: the challenges of measuring complex intervention effects

Background

The increased international focus on improving patient outcomes, safety and quality of care has led stakeholders, policy makers and healthcare provider organizations to adopt standardized processes for evaluating healthcare organizations. Accreditation and certification have been proposed as interventions to support patient safety and high quality healthcare. Guidelines recommend accreditation but are cautious about the evidence, judged as inconclusive. The push for accreditation continues despite sparse evidence to support its efficiency or effectiveness.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) indexes and keyword searches in any language. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and AMSTAR framework. 915 abstracts were screened and 20 papers were reviewed in full in January 2013. Inclusion criteria included studies addressing the effect of hospital accreditation and certification using systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies with a control group, or interrupted time series. Outcomes included both clinical outcomes and process measures. An updated literature search in July 2014 identified no new studies.

Results

The literature review uncovered three systematic reviews and one randomized controlled trial. The lone study assessed the effects of accreditation on hospital outcomes and reported inconsistent results. Excluded studies were reviewed and their findings summarized.

Conclusion

Accreditation continues to grow internationally but due to scant evidence, no conclusions could be reached to support its effectiveness. Our review did not find evidence to support accreditation and certification of hospitals being linked to measurable changes in quality of care as measured by quality metrics and standards. Most studies did not report intervention context, implementation, or cost. This might reflect the challenges in assessing complex, heterogeneous interventions such as accreditation and certification. It is also may be magnified by the impact of how accreditation is managed and executed, and the varied financial and organizational healthcare constraints. The strategies hospitals should impelment to improve patient safety and organizational outcomes related to accreditation and certification components remains unclear.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0933-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Anesthesiological acute pain therapy in Germany: telephone-based survey]

INTRODUCTION

The last survey of anesthesiological acute pain therapy in Germany was conducted in 1999. Since then new organisational as well as therapeutic aspects have developed. Amongst others the operation and procedures key (OPS) figure 8-919 complex acute pain therapy has been introduced in the German medical billing system, with the restriction that it cannot currently be redeemed. There is an ongoing debate on the role of epidural analgesia in acute pain therapy and new oral medication concepts have been established. Therefore a survey of the present state of acute pain therapy in Germany was conducted.

METHODS

Based on a list of all 1,356 hospitals in Germany a randomized list of 412 hospitals was generated. Out of these 412 hospitals those with anesthesiology departments (378 hospitals) were contacted via telephone and asked to participate in the survey. Out of the 378 hospitals 285 (75.4 %) agreed to take part. The survey consisted of a questionnaire containing closed and open questions regarding organisational and therapeutic aspects of acute pain therapy. The ethics committee of the University of Regensburg rated the survey as not being subject to approval due to the lack of personal patient data.

RESULTS

Of the participating hospitals 183 (64.2 %) had an acute pain service (APS) and of these 107 (58.5 %) met the quality criteria of the OPS 8-919. This figure however, was only consistently documented by 40 (37 %) APSs. Epidural analgesia (EA) was offered by 275 (96.5 %) hospitals and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) by 255 (89.5 %). Likewise, 255 (89.5 %) hospitals used controlled-released opioids in acute pain therapy. Concerning EA, the medications most used were sufentanil as an opioid and ropivacaine as a local anesthetic in255 (92.7 %) of the hospitals with EA for sufentanil and 253 (92 %] for ropivacaine. An EA was offered on regular wards in 240 (87.3 %) hospitals. Uncertainty existed about concrete limits for coagulation values before removal of an epidural catheter. The opioid most utilized in PCA was piritramide with some hospitals using morphine or oxycodone (92.2 %, 9.4 % and 9.4 %, respectively). Other opioids, such as hydromorphone and tramadol were rarely used and remifentanil was not used at all. Oral medication was widely used with metamizole being the non-opioid analgesic and oxycodone/naloxone the controlled-release opioid being prescribed the most. New antiepileptic drugs, such as gabapentin or pregabalin were rarely employed in acute pain therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Since 1999 the number of hospitals that have implemented an APS has risen from 36.1 % to 64.2 %. The lack of consistent documentation of the OPS 8-919 will probably not increase the likelihood that it will become redeemable in the near future. Certain therapy methods, such as EA and PCA were still well established with oral therapy gaining in significance. The uncertainty regarding limits for coagulation values before removal of an epidural catheter could perhaps be reduced by a statement from the German Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care.