Management of cancer-related pain

Best Practices in End of Life and Palliative Care in the Emergency Department

Three-quarters of patients over the age of 65 visit the emergency department (ED) in the last six months of their lives. Approximately 20% of hospice residents have ED visits. These patients must decide whether to receive emergency care that prioritizes life support, which may not achieve their desired outcomes and might even be futile. The patients in these end-of-life stages could benefit from early palliative care or hospice consultation before they present to the ED. Furthermore, early integration of palliative care at the time of ED visits is important in establishing the goals of the entire treatment.

Oncologic Emergencies: Palliative Care in the Emergency Department Setting

BACKGROUND

Palliative care is an essential component of emergency medicine, as many patients with terminal illness will present to the emergency department (ED) for symptomatic management at the end of life (EOL).

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review evaluates palliative care in the ED, with a focus on the literature behind management of EOL symptoms, especially dyspnea and cancer-related pain.

DISCUSSION

As the population ages, increasing numbers of patients present to the ED with severe EOL symptoms. An understanding of the role of palliative care in the ED is crucial to effectively communicating with these patients to determine their goals and provide medical care in line with their wishes. Beneficence, nonmaleficence, and patient autonomy are essential components of palliative care. Patients without medical decision-making capacity may have an advance directive, do not resuscitate or do not intubate order, or Portable Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment available to assist clinicians. Effective and empathetic communication with patients and families is vital to EOL care discussions. Two of the most common and distressing symptoms at the EOL are dyspnea and pain. The most effective treatment of EOL dyspnea is opioids, with literature showing little efficacy for other therapies. The most effective treatment for cancer-related pain is opioids, with expeditious pain control achievable with a rapid fentanyl titration. It is also important to address nausea, vomiting, and secretions, as these are common at the EOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency clinicians play a vital role in EOL patient care. Clear, empathetic communication and treatment of EOL symptoms are essential.

Evaluation of Emergency Department Management of Opioid-Tolerant Cancer Patients With Acute Pain

CONTEXT

There are no previously published studies examining opioid doses administered to opioid-tolerant cancer patients during emergency department (ED) encounters.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if opioid-tolerant cancer patients presenting with acute pain exacerbations receive adequate initial doses of as needed (PRN) opioids during ED encounters based on home oral morphine equivalent (OME) use.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of opioid-tolerant cancer patients who received opioids in our ED over a two-year period. The percentage of patients who received an adequate initial dose of PRN opioid (defined as ≥10% of total 24-hour ambulatory OME) was evaluated. Logistic regression was used to establish the relationship between 24-hour ambulatory OME and initial ED OME to assess whether higher home usage was associated with higher likelihood of being undertreated.

RESULTS

Out of 216 patients, 61.1% of patients received an adequate initial PRN dose of opioids in the ED. Of patients taking <200 OMEs per day at home, 77.4% received an adequate initial dose; however, only 3.2% of patients taking >400 OMEs per day at home received an adequate dose. Patients with ambulatory 24-hour OME greater than 400 had 99% lower odds of receiving an adequate initial dose of PRN opioid in the ED compared to patients with ambulatory 24-hour OME less than 100 (OR <0.01, CI 0.00-0.02, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with daily home use less than 200 OMEs generally received adequate initial PRN opioid doses during their ED visit. However, patients with higher home opioid usage were at increased likelihood of being undertreated.

Cancer patient attitudes toward analgesic usage and pain intervention

OBJECTIVES

Although pain is commonly experienced by cancer patients, many receive inadequate pain management. Little data exist quantifying analgesic usage among oncology patients. This study evaluates perceived causes of pain and investigates reasons why oncology patients fail to receive optimal pain management.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved questionnaire assessing pain control and analgesic usage was posted on OncoLink. Between November 2005 and July 2008, 1107 patients responded. Respondents were female (73%), white (74%), educated beyond high school (64%), and had surgery (69%), chemotherapy (64%), and radiation (47%). Most had breast (30%), gastrointestinal (12%), gynecologic (11%), and lung (8%) malignancies.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven percent of respondents reported pain, with 48% reporting pain directly from their cancer and 47% reporting pain from their cancer treatment. Among patients in pain, 25% did not use analgesics. Analgesic usage was significantly less in men (44% vs. 52%, P=0.023), minorities (42% vs. 53%, P=0.001), and patients with lower education levels (45% vs. 53%, P=0.013). Usage varied by cancer diagnosis and was higher among patients who received chemotherapy (56% vs. 40%, P<0.001) and radiation (53% vs. 47%, P=0.058). Reasons for not taking analgesics included: health care provider not recommending medications (85%), fearing addiction/dependence (80%), and inability to pay (76%). Many patients reporting pain, not taking analgesics, pursued alternative therapies (94%).

DISCUSSION

Most cancer patients perceive pain from their disease or treatment, regardless of therapy received. Many, however, did not use analgesics due to concerns of addiction, cost, or lack of health care provider endorsement. Providers should regularly discuss pain symptoms and management with cancer patients.

[Physicians' knowledge on cancer pain therapy : Comparison of palliative care and prehospital emergency physicians in training]

BACKGROUND

Palliative care needs a high level of expertise. In particular, there are some potential difficulties in the treatment of patients with the symptom cancer pain (for example lack of education). In Germany, various physicians are involved in cancer pain treatment but in general palliative care patients are treated by a physician who is educated in palliative medicine. In special circumstances prehospital emergency physicians and other physicians are involved in therapy decisions in palliative care patients as well. The authors surveyed different groups of physicians in Germany about their specific knowledge of cancer pain management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A self-designed, standardized questionnaire (50 items) was given to palliative physicians in training (PP). The survey asked prospectively for knowledge on the World Health Organization (WHO) step ladder of cancer pain therapy. The results were retrolectively compared with an earlier investigation with the same background (emergency physicians in training EP).

RESULTS

There was a 99.5% response rate with a total of 654 respondents (PP 185, EP 469) and 461 (70.5%) of the respondents had knowledge of the WHO step ladder for the treatment of cancer pain [PP 164/185 (88.6%), EP 297/469 (63.3%), PP versus EP p < 0.001)]. The correct numbers of therapeutic levels were known by 361/461 participants [PP 151/164 (92.1%), EP 210/297 (70.7%), p < 0.001].The EPs with a professional experience less than 5 years answered statistically significantly more questions correctly (p = 0.004). Concerning the defined parameters knowledge and professional experience, there was no statistically significant difference in the group of PP.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study verified that the highest knowledge scores were achieved by PPs and overall, the knowledge scores showed an improvement in comparison to previous investigations. In recent years there seems to have been an improvement in education on pain treatment,for example during medical school. Whether this also leads to an improvement of patient care and the relevance of these data for the clinical practice needs to be investigated in further studies.

Hospice care and the emergency department: rules, regulations, and referrals

Emergency clinicians often care for patients with terminal illness who are receiving hospice care and many more patients who may be in need of such care. Hospice care has been shown to successfully address the multidimensional aspects of the end-of-life concerns of terminally ill patients: dying with dignity, dying without pain, reducing the burden on family and caregivers, and achieving a home death, when desired. Traditional emergency medicine training may fail to address hospice as a system of care. When they are unfamiliar with the hospice model, emergency clinicians, patients, and caregivers may find it difficult to properly use and interact with these care services. Potential poor outcomes include the propagation of misleading or inaccurate information about the hospice system and the failure to guide appropriate patient referrals. This article reviews the hospice care service model and benefits offered, who may qualify for hospice care, common emergency presentations in patients under hospice care, and a stepwise approach to initiating a hospice care referral in the emergency department.

Intravenous Opioids for Severe Acute Pain in the Emergency Department

Objective:

To review clinical trials of intravenous opioids for severe acute pain in the emergency department (ED) and to provide an approach for optimization of therapy.

Data Sources:

Articles were identified through a search of Ovid/MEDLINE (1948-August 2010), PubMed (1950-August 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1991-August 2010), and Google Scholar (1900-August 2010). The search terms used were pain, opioid, and emergency department.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

The search was limited by age group to adults and by publication type to comparative studies. Studies comparing routes of administration other than intravenous or using non-opioid comparators were not included. Bibliographies of all retrieved articles were reviewed to obtain additional articles. The focus of the search was to identify original research that compared intravenous opioids used for treatment of severe acute pain for adults in the ED.

Data Synthesis:

At equipotent doses, randomized controlled trials have not shown clinically significant differences in analgesic response or adverse effects between opioids studied. Single opioid doses less than 0.1 mg/kg of intravenous morphine, 0.015 mg/kg of intravenous hydromorphone, or 1 μg/kg of intravenous fentanyl are likely to be inadequate for severe, acute pain and the need for additional doses should be anticipated. In none of the randomized controlled trials did patients develop respiratory depression requiring the use of naloxone. Future trials could investigate the safety and efficacy of higher doses of opioids. Implementation of nurse-initiated and patient-driven pain management protocols for opioids in the ED has shown improvements in timely provision of appropriate analgesics and has resulted in better pain reduction.

Conclusions:

Currently, intravenous administration of opioids for severe acute pain in the ED appears to be inadequate. Opioid doses in the ED should be high enough to provide adequate analgesia without additional risk to the patient. EDs could implement institution-specific protocols to standardize the management of pain.