Cancer pain assessment and management: does an institutional approach individualise and reduce cost of care?

OBJECTIVES: To understand individual prescribing and associated costs in patients managed with the Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool (EPAT). METHODS: The EPAT study was a two-arm parallel group cluster randomised (1:1) trial, including 19 UK cancer centres. Study outcome assessments, including pain levels, analgesia and non-pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions, collected at baseline, 3-5 days and, if applicable, 7-10 days after admission. Costs calculated for inpatient length of stay (LoS), medications and complex pain interventions. Analysis accounted for the clustered nature of the trial design. In this post-hoc analysis, healthcare utilisation and costs are presented descriptively. PARTICIPANTS: 10 centres randomised to EPAT (487 patients) and 9 (449 patients) to usual care (UC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, complex pain interventions, length of hospital stay and costs related to these outcomes. RESULTS: The mean per patient hospital cost was £3866 with EPAT and £4194 with UC, reflecting a mean LoS of 2.9 days and 3.1 days, respectively. Costs were lower for non-opioids, Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and opioids but slightly higher for adjuvants with EPAT than with UC. The mean per-patient opioid costs were £17.90 (EPAT) and £25.80 (UC). Mean per patient costs of all medication were £36 (EPAT) and £40 (UC).Complex pain intervention costs were £117 with EPAT per patient and £90 with UC. Overall mean cost per patient was £4018.3 (95% CI 3698.9 to 4337.8) with EPAT and £4323.8 (95% CI 4060.0 to 4587.7) with UC. CONCLUSIONS: EPAT facilitated personalised medicine and may result in less opioids, more specific treatments, improved pain outcomes and cost savings.

Using general practitioners with an extended role in spinal practice for the initial assessment of patients referred to spinal surgeons: preliminary experience and challenges.

AIM: To describe experience using general practitioners (GPs), with an extended role (GPwER) in spinal medicine, to expedite assessment, triage, and management of patients referred from primary care for specialist spinal surgical opinion. BACKGROUND: Low back and neck pain are common conditions in primary care. Indiscriminate or inappropriate referral to a spinal surgeon contributes to long waiting times. Previous attempts at triaging patients who really require a surgical opinion have used practice nurses, physiotherapists, clinical algorithms, and interdisciplinary screening clinics. METHODS: Within the setting of an independent spinal care centre, we have used GPs specially trained in spinal practice to expedite the assessment and triage of new referrals between 2015 and 2021. We reviewed feedback from a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire and the postgraduate backgrounds, training, practice with regard to triage of new referrals, and experiences of the GPs who were recruited. FINDINGS: Six GPwER had a mean of 26 years of postgraduate experience before appointment (range 10-44 years). The first four GPwER, appointed between 2015 and 2018, underwent an ad hoc in-house, interdisciplinary training programme and saw 2994 new patients between 2016 and 2020. After GPwER, assessment in only 18.9% (range 12.6 to 22.7%) of these patients was a spinal surgical opinion deemed necessary. Waiting times to see the spinal surgeon remained at 6-8 weeks despite a three-fold annual increase (from 340 to 1058) in new referrals. A Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire revealed high levels of satisfaction with the performances of the GPwER across seven dimensions. A dedicated training programme was designed in 2020, and the last two appointees underwent 20 h of clinical teaching prior to practice. Initial experience using GPwER, here termed 'Spinal Clinicians', suggests they are efficient at screening for patients needing spinal surgical referral. Establishing a recognised training programme, assessment, and certification for these practitioners are the next challenges.

Characterization of cancer-induced bone pain: an exploratory study.

PURPOSE: Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is the commonest cause of pain in patients with cancer. Its association with increased morbidity combined with limitations of currently available therapies makes it a clinical challenge. Clinical characterization of this complex pain syndrome is essential in underpinning clinical management and informing future research. The aim of this exploratory study was to characterise CIBP using self-rating scales. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patients with CIBP was carried out in a regional oncology centre. Patients described their pain over the preceding 24 h using the McGill Pain Questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and a breakthrough pain questionnaire. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were recruited. Annoying, gnawing, aching, and nagging were the most commonly used words to describe CIBP. From the BPI, median average pain was 4/10 and worst pain was 7/10 on a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale. The worst pain score correlated more strongly with BPI interference score (p=0.001). Forty-one patients had breakthrough pain. Patients with breakthrough pain had higher total BPI interference scores than those with no breakthrough pain; median (IQR); 35.0 (2.5-44.7) vs. 18.5 (5.5-26.7), p<0.01. Of the patients, 20/41 (48%) had breakthrough pain of rapid onset (less than 5 min) and short duration (less than 15 min). CONCLUSION: In CIBP, worst pain most accurately reflects the characteristics of pain flares and functional impairment. Breakthrough pain is often unpredictable, sudden onset and short duration. Further characterization studies of CIBP in the broader cancer population are needed.