Evaluation of the practice of reprocessing ORs in German hospitals from an infection prevention and control perspective.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the cleaning and disinfection of operating rooms (ORs) status quo focusing on hygiene plans in German hospitals. METHODS: In 2016, a structured online survey was sent to infection prevention and control (IPC) specialists at the cost calculation hospitals of the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) and all university hospitals in Germany (n = 365). RESULTS: With a response rate of 27.4%, 78% stated that written hygiene plans were available. After cleaning and disinfecting an OR with a "septic" patient, 55% waited until surfaces were dry before reusing in accordance with national recommendations, 27% waited > 30 min. Additionally, 28% of hospitals had ORs only for "septic" patients. In 56% "septic" patients were only operated on at the end of the program. Postoperative monitoring of patients with bacteria with special IPC requirements took place in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) (29%), operating room (OR) (52%), intensive care unit (ICU) (53%), and in the intermediate care unit (IMC) (19%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Despite written hygiene plans in place the partly long duration of OR nonuse time following IPC measures, the consistent continued use of stratification for "septic" patients and the postoperative follow-up care of patients with colonizing/infecting bacteria with special IPC requirements in the OR and high care areas represent relevant potential for improvement.

[Critical incidents in acute pain management-A risk analysis of CIRS reports]. / Kritische Ereignisse in der Akutschmerztherapie ­ eine Risikoanalyse von CIRS-Meldungen.

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.

[Pain management in departments of internal medicine : Results of a national survey on structures and processes of care]. / Schmerzmanagement in der Inneren Medizin : Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Erhebung zu Struktur- und Prozessdaten.

BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES: Deficits in the quality of pain management in hospitals have been described for years. The aim of this study was to assess structures and processes of pain management in departments for internal medicine in German hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected using a standardized telephone interview (non-university hospital departments) on a randomized sample of hospitals (circa 1/3 of hospitals); all German departments of university hospitals were invited to participate and questioned separately using an online questionnaire (SurveyMonkey®). RESULTS: Data from 139 non-university departments (response rate: 21%) and 33 university hospital departments (only 21 questionnaires were fully answered, response rate 17 and 11%, respectively) were collected. Of 619 non-university hospital departments contacted, 441 explicitly refused to participate in the survey, most often on the grounds that there was no interest in pain management. Pain was regularly recorded as an independent parameter during the medical visit in 89% of the non-university hospital and 96% of the university hospital departments; written standardized treatment protocols for pain therapy were available in 57% of the non-university hospital departments (54% university hospital departments). In 76% of the non-university hospitals departments (100% university hospital departments), an acute pain service was also available for patients of internal medicine departments for co-treatment. Written cooperation agreements were less common (35% non-university hospital departments, 18% university hospital departments). CONCLUSION: The described implementation of pain management was satisfying in the participating departments. However, in consideration of the low participation and high rejection of participation due to explicit disinterest in the topic, the results should be critically assessed and presumably characterized by a significant positive bias.

[Safety and monitoring of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia : Clinical practice in German hospitals]. / Sicherheit und Monitoring der patientenkontrollierten intravenösen Analgesie : Anwendungspraxis in deutschen Krankenhäusern.

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) is a well-established technique in acute pain management and available in most German hospitals. Despite its widespread use, information on current clinical practice is limited. This investigation evaluated clinical practice and monitoring as well as PCIA-associated adverse events and critical incidents in German hospitals. METHODS: An invitation to participate in this online-survey was sent to 995 heads of anesthesiology departments belonging to the "German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine". RESULTS: Of the departments receiving the link, 244 took part (response rate 25%). PCIA was used in 193 of these hospitals (79%). All the following statements relate to the hospitals in which PCIA was used. Piritramide was the most frequently used opioid. In parallel with PCIA, additional nonopioid analgesics were used in 94% of the hospitals, and in 38%, additional slow-release oral opioids were used. Parenteral opioids were administered by the ward staff in 4% of the hospitals. In 75% of hospitals, there were standardized indications for PCIA therapy, with almost two thirds of respondents stating that PCIA was the technique of second choice if regional procedures were contraindicated or failed. In all, 76% of the hospitals had an acute pain service. Twenty-four percent of the hospitals regularly used PCIA in non-surgical patients. In pediatric patients, PCIA was used in 62 hospitals (32%). Only 31% of the hospitals reported the use of standardized protocols for the specific monitoring of patients' vital signs on general wards, exceeding general care. Of the department, 158 (82%) reported adverse events in connection with the use of PCIA within the six-month period preceding the survey (most frequently due to patients' noncompliance [52%], dislocated intravenous lines [41%], communication errors [16%], administration of additional analgesics [16%] and/ or sedatives [14%], problems with the pump [16%], programming errors [9%], incorrect opioid concentration in the reservoir [8%], non-observance of contraindications [7%], incorrect dosing [6%] and self-dosing by the patient [4%] or by third parties [3%], filling the reservoir with thewrong medication [2%]; and other problems [5%]). Only 35 of the hospitals (18%) reported no problems associated with PCIA therapy. Seventy-five of the 193 respondents (39%) stated that at least one critical incident had occurred in the context of the use of PCIA. This resulted in a total of 335 cases out of an estimate of 50.000 patients treated with PCIA. The respondents classified these as follows: I) 273 incidents requiring a prolonged stay in the recovery room, but without further complications, II) 58 requiring transfer to the intensive care unit, but without further complications, III) three resulting in permanent harm to the patient and IV) one resulting in the death of the patient. A comparison of the monitoring standards for PCIA showed that critical incidents were reported less frequently in hospitals with less intensive monitoring, and more frequently in hospitals with higher monitoring standards. CONCLUSION: PCIA is a frequently used analgesic technique in German hospitals. There were many differences in how PCIA therapy was applied and monitored on general wards. Adverse events occurred to a significant extent, with a considerable part of them, which might be preventable. Critical incidents were perceived more often when standards for monitoring on general wards were higher. Consented current recommendations regarding treatment and monitoring standards as well as the systematic recording of complications when using PCIA are pending.

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.

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.

[Management of patients with chronic pain in acute and perioperative medicine : An interdisciplinary challenge]. / Management von Patienten mit chronischen Schmerzen in der Akut- und perioperativen Medizin : Eine interdisziplinäre Herausforderung.

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.

[Agreement of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists and the Professional Association of German Surgeons for the Organization of Postoperative Pain Therapy for Surgical Patients (revised version 2019)]. / Vereinbarung zur Organisation der Schmerztherapie chirurgischer Patienten des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Anästhesisten und des Berufsverbandes der Deutschen Chirurgen (Neufassung 2019).

The treatment of any causal, procedure-specific and/or concomitant acute pain is an essential quality feature in any surgical subspecialty. An interdisciplinary and interprofessional pain therapy aims for an immediate improvement of the patients' quality of life, a reduction of the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality in the medium term, prevention of any pain chronification in the long run as well as a reduction of hospitalization and sick leave. The "Agreement of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists and the Professional Association of German Surgeons for the Organization of Postoperative Pain Therapy" exists since 1992. In view of the continuously developing scientific evidence, updated guideline recommendations and interprofessionally designed treatment pathways, these agreements have been adapted to the current requirements and structural conditions of the German healthcare system. Thus, both aforementioned professional associations promote an up to date version of an "Agreement for the Organization of Pain Therapy for Surgical Patients", a precise recommendation and a manual for the acting partners in order to realize the abovementioned goals.

[Recommendations for the perioperative use of dipyrone : Expert recommendation of the working group on acute pain of the German Pain Society, the scientific working group on pain medicine of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the surgical working group on acute pain of the German Society for Surgery with participation of representatives of the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association]. / Empfehlungen zur perioperativen Anwendung von Metamizol : Expertenempfehlung des Arbeitskreises Akutschmerz der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft, des Wissenschaftlichen Arbeitskreises Schmerzmedizin der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin und der Chirurgischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Akutschmerz der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie unter Beteiligung von Vertretern der Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft.

BACKGROUND: Dipyrone (metamizole) is widely used for perioperative pain management in countries where it is marketed; however, uncertainty exists concerning the safe use of this drug, specifically considering the rare adverse event of an agranulocytosis. METHODS: As evidence from published studies was lacking, an expert panel developed recommendations for the perioperative use of dipyrone. After a formal, structured consensus process, the recommendations were approved by the involved medical societies. RESULTS: The panel agreed that blood cell counts shall not be standard for short-term perioperative use in patients unless they are at risk for neutropenia. The medical staff shall be aware of the symptoms and course of action when agranulocytosis is suspected. Patients shall be informed about the risks and benefits of dipyrone and about potential alternatives. The expert group concluded that dipyrone has a relatively positive risk-benefit ratio compared to other nonopioid analgesics. The group strongly recommended educating patients about the symptoms of agranulocytosis if they have received dipyrone over several days and/or treatment is to be continued after discharge, because agranulocytosis can occur several days after discontinuation of metamizole. Further recommendations refer to the information of the physician taking over the patient's care after discharge and the avoidance of re-exposure in patients having previously suffered from dipyrone-induced agranulocytosis. CONCLUSION: The group's recommendations shall be communicated in order to raise medical staff's and patients' awareness of the appropriate use of dipyrone in the perioperative period.

[Staff and organizational requirements for pain services in hospitals : A recommendation from the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine]. / Personelle und organisatorische Voraussetzungen für Schmerzdienste in Krankenhäusern : Empfehlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin e. V.

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.

[Perioperative use of metamizole and other nonopioid analgesics in children : Results of a survey]. / Perioperative Anwendung von Metamizol und anderen Nichtopioidanalgetika bei Kindern : Ergebnisse einer Umfrage.

BACKGROUND: Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative pain management in children. In many countries, the nonopioid metamizole (dipyrone) is administered as an alternative to paracetamol and traditional NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), such as ibuprofen and diclofenac; however, concerns over possible life-threatening adverse events (agranulocytosis) have prompted a debate over the use of metamizole. OBJECTIVE: To investigate current practice and use of nonopioid analgesics, particularly of metamizole in children younger than 14 years, in the perioperative setting. Furthermore, metamizole-related side effects, safety and approaches used to inform patients were addressed. METHODS: A link to an online questionnaire on the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics in children, with a specific focus on dipyrone, was sent by e­mail to members of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and to members of the German Pain Society. RESULTS: A total of 2284 anesthesiologists filled out the questionnaire. Of these, 1476 were involved in the perioperative care of children younger than 14 years. The majority of respondents worked in German hospitals (90.5%) but Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands were also among the countries represented. Of the respondents, 99.1% reported using nonopioid analgesics in the perioperative setting. The NSAID, metamizole, paracetamol and COX-2 inhibitors were administered by 83.9%, 68.6%, 67.5% and 2% of the respondents, respectively. Intravenous metamizole was the preferred nonopioid analgesic during surgical procedures, but following surgery, NSAID, metamizole and paracetamol were given with the same frequency by anesthesiologists. Of the respondents, 49.3% reported using metamizole in combination with another nonopioid analgesic in cases of severe pain, 14.8% used it as the sole nonopioid analgesic, and 23.2% never used it at all. Nearly half of the respondents administered metamizole i.v. in doses of 15 mg/kg body weight or lower, whereas 26% administered doses of at least 16 mg/kg up to more than 20 mg/kg. Of the physicians, 298 (20.2%) restricted the duration of metamizole use, varying between one single administration (4.7%), administration for 1 day (27.5%), or for 1-2 weeks (29.2%). Of the anesthesiologists, 65.6% reported no metamizole-related adverse effects. Allergic reactions/anaphylaxis and a drop in blood pressure requiring intervention were observed by 3-4% of the respondents. No change in blood cell counts within the last 2 years was reported by 73.1% of the respondents, whereas 17 anesthesiologists (1.3%) had observed children with altered blood cell counts, with 2 (0.14%) reporting agranulocytosis. In most cases these were incidental findings. No severe sequelae or deaths were reported. Few respondents (5.5%) performed routine blood cell counts to monitor metamizole therapy. Furthermore, only a minority always (3.5%) or sometimes (6.1%) informed a child's parents of possible side effects of treatment with metamizole. CONCLUSION: The survey confirmed that metamizole is frequently used in children in the perioperative setting. Intravenous metamizole is the preferred nonopioid analgesic administered intraoperatively for pain prophylaxis. Clinical symptoms of agranulocytosis should be monitored and patients should be better informed about metamizole-related side effects.

[Agreement of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists and the Professional Association of German Surgeons for the Organization of Postoperative Pain Therapy for Surgical Patients (revised version 2019)]. / Vereinbarung zur Organisation der Schmerztherapie chirurgischer Patienten des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Anästhesisten und des Berufsverbandes der Deutschen Chirurgen (Neufassung 2019).

The treatment of any causal, procedure-specific and/or concomitant acute pain is an essential quality feature in any surgical subspecialty. An interdisciplinary and interprofessional pain therapy aims for an immediate improvement of the patients' quality of life, a reduction of the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality in the medium term, prevention of any pain chronification in the long run as well as a reduction of hospitalization and sick leave. The "Agreement of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists and the Professional Association of German Surgeons for the Organization of Postoperative Pain Therapy" exists since 1992. In view of the continuously developing scientific evidence, updated guideline recommendations and interprofessionally designed treatment pathways, these agreements have been adapted to the current requirements and structural conditions of the German healthcare system. Thus, both aforementioned professional associations promote an up to date version of an "Agreement for the Organization of Pain Therapy for Surgical Patients", a precise recommendation and a manual for the acting partners in order to realize the abovementioned goals.

[Recommendations for the perioperative use of dipyrone : Expert recommendation of the working group on acute pain of the German Pain Society, the scientific working group on pain medicine of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the surgical working group on acute pain of the German Society for Surgery with participation of representatives of the Drug Commission of the German Medical Association]. / Empfehlungen zur perioperativen Anwendung von Metamizol : Expertenempfehlung des Arbeitskreises Akutschmerz der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft, des Wissenschaftlichen Arbeitskreises Schmerzmedizin der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin und der Chirurgischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Akutschmerz der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie unter Beteiligung von Vertretern der Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft.

BACKGROUND: Dipyrone (metamizole) is widely used for perioperative pain management in countries where it is marketed; however, uncertainty exists concerning the safe use of this drug, specifically considering the rare adverse event of an agranulocytosis. METHODS: As evidence from published studies was lacking, an expert panel developed recommendations for the perioperative use of dipyrone. After a formal, structured consensus process, the recommendations were approved by the involved medical societies. RESULTS: The panel agreed that blood cell counts shall not be standard for short-term perioperative use in patients unless they are at risk for neutropenia. The medical staff shall be aware of the symptoms and course of action when agranulocytosis is suspected. Patients shall be informed about the risks and benefits of dipyrone and about potential alternatives. The expert group concluded that dipyrone has a relatively positive risk-benefit ratio compared to other nonopioid analgesics. The group strongly recommended educating patients about the symptoms of agranulocytosis if they have received dipyrone over several days and/or treatment is to be continued after discharge, because agranulocytosis can occur several days after discontinuation of metamizole. Further recommendations refer to the information of the physician taking over the patient's care after discharge and the avoidance of re-exposure in patients having previously suffered from dipyrone-induced agranulocytosis. CONCLUSION: The group's recommendations shall be communicated in order to raise medical staff's and patients' awareness of the appropriate use of dipyrone in the perioperative period.

[Agreement of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists and the Professional Association of German Surgeons for the Organization of Postoperative Pain Therapy for Surgical Patients (revised version 2019)]. / Vereinbarung zur Organisation der Schmerztherapie chirurgischer Patienten des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Anästhesisten und des Berufsverbandes der Deutschen Chirurgen (Neufassung 2019).

The treatment of any causal, procedure-specific and/or concomitant acute pain is an essential quality feature in any surgical subspecialty. An interdisciplinary and interprofessional pain therapy aims for an immediate improvement of the patients' quality of life, a reduction of the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality in the medium term, prevention of any pain chronification in the long run as well as a reduction of hospitalization and sick leave. The "Agreement of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists and the Professional Association of German Surgeons for the Organization of Postoperative Pain Therapy" exists since 1992. In view of the continuously developing scientific evidence, updated guideline recommendations and interprofessionally designed treatment pathways, these agreements have been adapted to the current requirements and structural conditions of the German healthcare system. Thus, both aforementioned professional associations promote an up to date version of an "Agreement for the Organization of Pain Therapy for Surgical Patients", a precise recommendation and a manual for the acting partners in order to realize the abovementioned goals.

[Nursing pain experts in German hospitals : A compilation of activity profiles and tasks]. / Pflegerische Schmerzexperten an deutschen Kliniken : Eine Erfassung zu Tätigkeitsprofilen und Aufgaben.

BACKGROUND: In recent years nurses have come to play a professional role in pain management. In Germany, the publication of the national expert standards on pain management in nursing resulted in nurses being educated to be pain resource nurses; however, since education has started the continuance and commitments of specialized pain nurses in clinical practice is basically unclear. The goal of this evaluation was to identify how pain resource nurses are involved in pain management and organizational aspects in German hospitals. METHOD: Online survey of 374 directors of nursing services of different types of hospitals on the assignment of nursing pain experts. RESULTS: Pain resource nurses are involved in pain management in 70.6% of the hospitals responding to the questionnaire. Their task profile depends on the hospital size and 42.2% of the hospitals have documented task profiles. Pain resource nurses are primarily involved in invasive pain management processes (37.1%) and in the management of pain in patients with complex pain problems after surgery (33.2%). Educative tasks are training of colleagues and implementation and conversion of the national expert standards. Of the hospitals 36.1% implemented the national expert standards for acute pain and 57% of the medium-sized hospitals have at least also implemented the national expert standards for chronic pain. DISCUSSION: The study shows a first insight into the task profiles of pain resource nurses. The implementation of this special qualification is meaningful and seems to be well-recognized in the hospitals. The tasks of patient care are orientated to the spectrum of patients treated in the hospital. The tasks of education also show the importance for the education of colleagues.

[Delegation of medical activities in acute pain therapy]. / Delegation ärztlicher Tätigkeiten in der Akutschmerztherapie.

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.

[Is supplemental ear acupuncture for surgical tooth removal with local anesthesia effective? : A pilot study]. / Ist die Supplementierung der Ohrakupunktur bei operativer Zahnentfernung in Lokalanästhesie effektiv? : Eine Pilotstudie.

BACKGROUND: The application of ear acupuncture can contribute to a reduction of acute pain. Data on the application of ear acupuncture following oral surgery in odontology is insufficient. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effectiveness of ear acupuncture as an auxiliary analgesic treatment in addition to local anesthesia for operative tooth removal. METHODS: In this prospective open non-randomized pilot study (in accordance with the CONSORT publication) 2 cohorts of 50 patients each with the indications for an operative tooth removal either with or without the application of ear acupuncture in addition to local anesthesia with articain were observed. Patients were allocated to the groups according to their preference. Pain intensity while resting and while chewing was recorded as the primary parameter for a period of 10 days. The secondary parameters were the subjective experience of anxiety and symptoms, such as headaches, dizziness and nausea. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ significantly with respect to demographic variables or the use of local anesthetics. At the various measurement intervals, pain intensity while resting or chewing differed significantly between the two groups (ANOVA, p = 0.004, p = 0.007, respectively). Furthermore, the experience of anxiety (ANOVA, p = 0.0001), the number of patients taking analgesics (χ2-test, p = 0.017) and the total postoperative consumption of analgesics (t-test, 0.001) revealed significant differences. In both groups the numerical rating scales (NRS) for postoperative headaches, dizziness and nausea were low. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Despite a potential bias and methodological limitations of the study design, the results of this investigation suggest that ear acupuncture influences the experience of pain and anxiety in the postoperative period after tooth removal. As a treatment method with low adverse effects ear acupuncture can contribute to postoperative pain control, especially in patients with preoperative anxiety.

[Dipyrone (metamizole) : Considerations on monitoring for early detection of agranulocytosis]. / Metamizol : Überlegungen zum Monitoring zur frühzeitigen Diagnose einer Agranulozytose.

BACKGROUND: Dipyrone (metamizole) is a non-opioid analgesic commonly used in Germany, which can, in very rare cases, cause life-threatening agranulocytosis. The prescribing information calls for regular monitoring of the differential blood count in cases of long-term treatment. However, there is uncertainty about how this testing should be handled in practice. OBJECTIVES: Which recommendations can be derived from the published literature for evaluating blood cell counts during treatment with metamizole and which other options for monitoring exist? METHODS: Data from recent epidemiological studies, reviews, and spontaneously reported cases were evaluated. RESULTS: Agranulocytosis can emerge at highly variable intervals ranging from the first day of metamizole treatment to months after treatment has begun. As a result, there is no conclusive, evidence-based recommendation for the time intervals at which blood cell counts should be tested. Therefore, the onset of clinical symptoms should be used as trigger for monitoring blood cell counts to enable early diagnosis and avoid agranulocytosis-related complications. In addition to general symptoms like fever, sore throat, fatigue, and muscle pain, mucosal ulcerations, severe angina, and systemic infections leading to sepsis are typical of agranulocytosis. CONCLUSIONS: Providing patients and medical staff with better information about early symptoms of agranulocytosis could be a sensible way to prevent complications. Any suspicion of agranulocytosis should immediately lead to a differential blood count and to the withdrawal of all drugs possibly associated with agranulocytosis. Patients should be monitored and treated according to the severity of their symptoms.

[Role of anesthesiology in pain medicine and palliative care treatment in German hospitals : Survey of department heads of anesthesiology on treatment structures]. / Rolle der Anästhesiologie in der schmerzmedizinischen und palliativmedizinischen Versorgung in deutschen Krankenhäusern : Befragung von Chefärzten der Anästhesiologie zu Versorgungsstrukturen.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this analysis was to describe the role of anesthesiology departments in pain medicine and palliative care services in German hospitals. METHOD: In the year 2012, all heads of departments of anesthesiology registered with the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine were surveyed about structures of pain medicine and palliative care services in their hospitals using a standardized postal questionnaire. RESULTS: Out of 408 returned questionnaires (response rate 47%) 403 could be evaluated. Of the hospitals 58% had a designated pain medicine service, in 36 (9%) of the hospitals this was organized as an independent department and in 195 (57%) as part of another department, mostly the department of anesthesiology. The "pain clinic" as an outpatient service was the most common form of structure for pain medicine services (41%). Inpatient pain medicine units were available in 77 (19%) of the hospitals and a partial inpatient unit in the form of a day hospital in 26 (7%) of the hospitals. For the care of inpatients from other departments, there was an intrahospital pain consultation service in 166 of the hospitals, which was the only structure for pain medicine in 32 of the 231 hospitals that reported having a designated pain medicine service. In 160 pain medicine services anesthesiologists were the only medical practitioners and in a further 18 both anesthesiologists and other specialists were available (orthopedist/orthopedic surgeons n = 6, internal medicine n = 4, psychiatrist n = 2, general practitioner = 1 and neurologist n = 1). Only two hospitals had no anesthesiologist in the pain medicine team and for the remaining 51 hospitals no information was provided. In 189 of the 231 hospitals with pain medicine services, there was at least 1 physician with special qualifications in pain management. In 97 (44%) of the hospitals psychologists were part of the team with 53 having at least 1 psychologist with a special qualification in chronic pain management. Of the hospitals, 16% had a specialized department for palliative care, in 32% a specialized palliative care service was part of another department, which was the department of anesthesiology in 30%. Of the hospitals 56% had a palliative care consultation service, 41% had a specialized inpatient palliative care unit, 6% an outpatient clinic, 4% a day hospital and in 16% a specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) serving the community was incorporated. Inpatient consultation services and the SOPC were more common when the department of anesthesiology was involved in the palliative care services. CONCLUSION: In German hospitals, the departments of anesthesiology make a significant contribution to the provision of both pain medicine and palliative care services. Nevertheless, the respective structures of care are often incomplete or even lacking. There were shortcomings in terms of organization and qualification of the team in pain medicine services (e.g. no doctor with special qualifications in pain management or no psychologist). Palliative care services are more often organized as independent departments than as pain medicine services. Engagement of the anesthesiology department in palliative care is linked to a broader scope of the services provided, which might reflect the capacity of many anesthesiologists to work in an interdisciplinary manner and across interfaces.

[Acute pain therapy in German hospitals as competitive factor. Do competition, ownership and case severity influence the practice of acute pain therapy?]. / Akutschmerztherapie in deutschen Krankenhäusern als Wettbewerbsfaktor. Wird die Praxis der Akutschmerztherapie von Wettbewerb, Trägerschaft und Fallschwere beeinflusst?

BACKGROUND: Due to the implementation of the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system, the competitive pressure on German hospitals increased. In this context it has been shown that acute pain management offers economic benefits for hospitals. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the competitive situation, the ownership and the economic resources required on structures and processes for acute pain management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A standardized questionnaire on structures and processes of acute pain management was mailed to the 885 directors of German departments of anesthesiology listed as members of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin). RESULTS: For most hospitals a strong regional competition existed; however, this parameter affected neither the implementation of structures nor the recommended treatment processes for pain therapy. In contrast, a clear preference for hospitals in private ownership to use the benchmarking tool QUIPS (quality improvement in postoperative pain therapy) was found. These hospitals also presented information on coping with the management of pain in the corporate clinic mission statement more often and published information about the quality of acute pain management in the quality reports more frequently. No differences were found between hospitals with different forms of ownership in the implementation of acute pain services, quality circles, expert standard pain management and the implementation of recommended processes. Hospitals with a higher case mix index (CMI) had a certified acute pain management more often. The corporate mission statement of these hospitals also contained information on how to cope with pain, presentation of the quality of pain management in the quality report, implementation of quality circles and the implementation of the expert standard pain management more frequently. There were no differences in the frequency of using the benchmarking tool QUIPS or the implementation of recommended treatment processes with respect to the CMI. CONCLUSION: In this survey no effect of the competitive situation of hospitals on acute pain management could be demonstrated. Private ownership and a higher CMI were more often associated with structures of acute pain management which were publicly accessible in terms of hospital marketing.