Healthcare professionals' experiences of interdisciplinary collaboration in pain centres - A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The complexity of chronic pain requires interdisciplinary collaboration. Although this is recognisable in the framework for pain centres, few studies have investigated how interdisciplinary collaboration in pain centres is experienced by healthcare professionals, including the facilitators and barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration. The aim of the current study was therefore to investigate experiences of interdisciplinary collaboration in the treatment of patients with chronic pain among healthcare professionals in tertiary care pain centres.

METHODS

Eleven healthcare professionals, representing different healthcare disciplines from the four regional pain centres in Norway, participated in semi-structured individual interviews. The data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The results were categorised into three themes 'The best approach for chronic pain treatment', 'Collegial collaboration', and 'Challenges with interdisciplinary teamwork'. The informants valued the interdisciplinary work at the pain centre. They perceived it as the best approach for their patients and appreciated the support the collegial collaboration gave them as professionals. Although working together was rewarding and provided new insights, the informants also experienced the interdisciplinary teamwork as challenging, e.g., when the different professions disagreed on recommendations for further treatment or did not manage to work together as a team.

CONCLUSION

The informants found the interdisciplinary collaboration at the pain centre to provide the best treatment approach for their patients. It should be acknowledged that interdisciplinary teamwork can be challenging, and efforts should be put into establishing a good climate for collaboration and gaining knowledge about each profession's unique character and how they contribute to pain centre treatments.

Work Interventions Within Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs (IPRP) - Frequency, Patient Characteristics, and Association with Self-Rated Work Ability

Background

Interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs (IPRPs) help people with chronic pain improve their health and manage their work; however, the way IPRPs address sick leave could be improved. Although work interventions can be a part of IPRP, it is not well known how and to what extent.

Aim

This study explores the frequency of work interventions and the characteristics of patients who participate in work interventions as part of IPRP at specialist pain rehabilitation departments in Sweden. In addition, this study explores the association between participation in work interventions and change in patients' self-rated work ability after IPRP.

Methods

Data from the Swedish quality registry for pain rehabilitation (SQRP), which includes 3809 patients between 2016 and 2018, were analysed with descriptive statistics and regression analyses.

Results

The results indicate a high participation rate in work interventions (90%). Some differences were evident concerning characteristics of patients who participated in different work interventions. The return-to-work (RTW) plan, the most frequently used work intervention, had the strongest association with change in self-rated work ability after IPRP. However, the effect sizes were small, and the initial score best explained the change. Furthermore, there were differences between employed and unemployed patients and employment had a positive association with change in self-rated work ability.

Conclusion

More research is needed to understand IPRP's mechanisms and work interventions to support patients with chronic pain, reduce sick leave, and manage work. Employment status needs to be considered and interventions should be tailored to match the individual needs.

Participants' experiences from group-based treatment at multidisciplinary pain centres - a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of participants in non-pharmacological group-based treatments delivered as part of a randomised controlled trial at Norwegian tertiary care pain centres.

METHODS

Individual semi-structured interviews with 15 persons were conducted. The data were analysed with a descriptive thematic cross-case analysis based on the method of systematic text condensation.

RESULTS

All participants talked about some aspects of the group-based treatments as a positive experience, but mainly the outcome was in line with their expectations; they hoped it would reduce their pain but did not expect it. There were no clear-cut differences in the experiences between the participants from the two different intervention groups. The content was experienced as both relevant and interesting but also to introduce concepts that were difficult to grasp and understand. Similarly, the experiences of participating in a group-based treatment were mostly stimulating but could also be challenging because of an expectancy of sharing personal stories. Although experiencing few changes to their pain they came away with techniques and lessons that were valuable to them.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, taking part in group-based treatment was perceived as giving positive and valuable lessons, due to relevant content and learning from the professionals and fellow participants, but without any clear indication of reduced pain. Approval from ethical committee number 10260 REK Midt.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04057144.

Short-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with a chronic pain disorder

The current Covid-19 pandemic has already had a definite impact on the daily life of many people worldwide. It has been proposed that people with preexisting medical conditions will be harder hit by the pandemic and the subsequent measures to contain the spread of the disease. In this questionnaire-based, observational study, we aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on patients with a chronic pain disorder, who are treated at a tertiary multidisciplinary pain center.Participants rated the impact of the pandemic on their chronic pain disorder using a self-designed questionnaire. Also, participants filled out the regular follow-up questionnaire to assess a chronic pain disorder measuring among other parameters pain intensity, symptoms of depression, anxiety, stress, and pain-related quality of life.Of 136 eligible patients who presented to our pain center between May 5th and July 17th, 112 agreed to participate in the study (82.4%). Eighty two participants (73.2%) reported a deterioration of the pain disorder using the self-designed questionnaire. The more robust parameters of the regular follow-up questionnaire showed no relevant changes compared to data collected before the pandemic. We were not able to detect any demographic and medical parameters that were clinically relevantly associated with a higher impact of the pandemic.We conclude that a chronic pain disorder is a relatively stable disease that does not change significantly due to external factors, like the Covid-19 pandemic, even if the subjective impact is perceived to be high.

Baseline pain characteristics predict pain reduction after physical therapy in women with chronic pelvic pain. Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial

Background and aims Women with chronic pelvic pain represent a heterogeneous group, and it is suggested that the existence of sub-groups can explain varying results and inconclusiveness in clinical trials. Some predictors of treatment outcome are suggested, but the evidence is limited. The primary aim of this study was to explore if selected pre-treatment characteristics of the participants in a recently conducted randomized controlled trial were associated with treatment outcome. Methods In this study secondary analysis of data collected in a randomized trial were conducted. The participants were women with chronic pelvic pain randomized to two different physical therapy treatments. Analyses in this study were performed for the whole group as a cohort. The primary outcome measure was change in pain intensity from baseline to 12 months, measured with the numeric rating scale (0-10). The women were asked to rate their mean pelvic pain intensity during the last 7 days. Based on previous research and on available variables from the randomized controlled trial four potential predictive factors were derived from the baseline data and assessed one by one in a linear regression model, adjusted for age and treatment group. The variables with strongest association (p < 0.10) with the primary outcome were further included in a multivariable linear regression model with backward selection, adjusted for age and treatment group. Results Fifty women (mean age 38.1, SD = 12.2) were included in the analysis. For these women the mean change in pain intensity was -1.2 points (95% CI -1.8 to -0.7) from baseline to 12 months. The multivariable regression model showed that pelvic pain duration of 6 years or more was associated with less decrease in pain intensity with a regression coefficient of 1.3 (95% CI 0.3-2.4). Baseline pain intensity was associated with higher pain reduction after PT treatment with a regression coefficient per SD increase in baseline pain of -0.6 (95% CI -1.1 to -0.1). None of the women with main pain site other places than in the pelvis reported any pain reduction after physical therapy treatment, but due to the small numbers the predictor was not included in the regression analysis. Conclusions We identified that pelvic pain duration of 6 years or more was associated with less pain reduction, and that higher baseline pain intensity was associated with higher pain reduction after physical therapy treatment in this sample of women with chronic pelvic pain. For the variable main pain site other places than the pelvis the results are unsure due to small numbers. Implications Based on our finding of long pain duration as a negative predictor for pain reduction, we emphasize that early intervention is important. Many of the participants in our RCT reported pelvic surgeries or other treatments prior to referral for PT, and we suggest that referral to a non-invasive intervention such as PT should be considered at an earlier stage. In order to tailor interventions to the individual women's needs, thorough baseline assessments, preferably in a multidisciplinary setting, should be performed.

"No one wants you" - a qualitative study on the experiences of receiving rejection from tertiary care pain centres

Background and aims Four out of 10 referrals to tertiary care pain centres in Norway are not granted pain centre treatment, confirming earlier research on that this group of patients struggle to access the highest standard of care. Still, no study investigating how people with chronic pain experience rejections from pain centres was found. The aim of the study was therefore to investigate how people with chronic pain experience receiving a rejection from tertiary care pain centres after being referred by their general practitioners (GPs). Methods This was a qualitative study with semi-structured individual interviews with 12 persons, seven men and five women, rejected from the four different pain centres in Norway. The data were analysed thematically using systematic text condensation. Results The pain centre rejection created strong reactions, partly because the rejection was perceived as a refusal from the health care system as a whole. This was especially so because the pain centre was regarded as the last remaining treatment option, and given the rejection, they were now declined help by the experts in the field. Even though some informants had received an explanation for why they had not been granted pain centre treatment, a prominent experience was that the informants found it difficult to understand why their referral had been rejected given the severity of their pain. The incomprehensibility of the rejection together with a feeling of lack of future treatment options, increased the hopelessness and frustration of their situation and made it challenging to move on and search for help elsewhere. Conclusions The experiences with the pain centre rejections indicate that the rejection can have grave consequences for each individual in the following months. An improved system for how to handle expectations towards referrals, including prepare for the possibility of rejection and how to follow up a rejection, seems warranted. Implications Because a pain centre rejection most likely is received by persons in a vulnerable position, there should be available health care services to help them understand the rejections. And furthermore, help them to move from disappointment and hopelessness, towards an experience of empowerment and reorientation, by for instance planning further actions and interventions, and thereby, acknowledge their need for help.