Epidemiology of Chronic Pain in the Latium Region, Italy: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Clinical Characteristics of Patients Attending Pain Clinics.

In Italy, chronic pain affects more than a quarter of the population, whereas the average European prevalence is 21%. This high prevalence might be due to the high percentage of Italian people who do not receive treatment, even after the passing of law 38/2010 (the right to access pain management in Italy), which created a regional network for the diagnosis and treatment of noncancer chronic pain. Italian epidemiologic studies on chronic pain are scanty, and this observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study is the first to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients who attended the pain management clinics in the Latium Region, Italy, for the management of their noncancer chronic pain. A total of 1,606 patients (mean age 56.8 years, standard deviation ± 11.4), 67% women, were analyzed. Severe pain was present in 54% of the sample. Women experienced pain and had it in two or more sites more often than men (57% vs. 50%, p = .02; and 55.2% vs. 45.9%, p < .001, respectively). Chronic pain was musculoskeletal (45%), mixed (34%), and neuropathic (21%). In more than 60% of the cases, chronic pain was continuous, and in 20% it had lasted for more than 48 months; long-lasting pain was often neuropathic. Low back (33.4%) and lower limbs (28.2%) were the main locations. Severe intensity of pain was statistically significantly associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.84); with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes for chronic pain syndrome (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.55-2.95); and with continuous pain (OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.54-2.66). Neuropathic pain and mixed pain were significantly associated with number of sites, and a trend seemed to be present (OR 2.11 and 3.02 for 2 and 3 + sites; 95% CI 1.59-2.79 and 2.00-4.55, respectively).

Clinical Pharmacy Services in a Multidisciplinary Specialty Pain Clinic.

PURPOSE: To describe a model of clinical pharmacy services as part of a multidisciplinary specialty pain clinic by discussing (1) the role of a clinical pharmacist in a specialty setting, including clinical interventions implemented, and (2) how integration of a clinical pharmacist may translate into an improved patient care model for the management of chronic pain. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of pharmacist visits from October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015, in a specialty pain clinic at an academic medical center in Los Angeles, California. Data were collected regarding medication-related problems (MRPs) identified by the pharmacist, interventions implemented to resolve the MRPs, and types of medication care coordination activities (MCCAs) performed by the pharmacist, such as responding to medication refill requests and insurance issues. Descriptive statistics were used. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to initiating the study. RESULTS: At least 1 MRP was identified in 98.7% of the 380 visits. Problems identified by the clinical pharmacist were divided into 5 categories: medication refills needed (43%), medication appropriateness/effectiveness (18%), miscellaneous (17%), safety (16%), and nonadherence/patient variables (6%). Interventions focused on referral to appropriate providers, medication counseling, medication initiation, dose adjustment, and medication discontinuation. The most common MCCA was responding to refill requests. CONCLUSION: A clinical pharmacist can identify many MRPs and implement interventions in chronic pain management. Integration of clinical pharmacy services may improve practice management by facilitating the completion of MCCAs and increase access to patients' needs outside the clinic.

A survey of acute pain services in the UK.

The organisational state of inpatient pain management in UK hospitals is difficult to determine. We sent an electronic questionnaire to 209 acute pain service leads throughout the UK. Questions were about staffing and service provision. We received 141 responses (67%); 47% of all UK hospitals. Each service was responsible for a median (IQR [range]) of 566 (400-839 [120-2800]) beds. Each acute pain specialist nurse was responsible for 299 (238-534 [70-1923]) beds. The mean (SD) number of consultant hours per week was 5.54 (4.62), delivered by a median of 1.0 (1.0-2.5 [0.2-7.0]) consultant. Overnight cover was provided by 20 (15%) acute pain services, and weekend cover by 39 (29%). Acute pain services commonly (in 50 (35%) hospitals) had roles in addition to acute pain management. Most teams (105, (77%)) reviewed medical patients and patients with chronic pain (in 131, (96%) teams). Half of the services (56, (49%)), reported that they were part of an integrated acute and chronic pain service, however, 83 (59%) did not have any members who work in chronic pain clinics. The majority (79, (70%)) were able to access a nominated chronic pain consultant for advice. Provision of acute pain services throughout the UK is highly variable. The majority do not meet core UK standards.

The Impact of Integrated Multidisciplinary Palliative Care Program on Symptoms in Patients at the Palliative Care Ward-An Audit and a Protocol of Prospective Controlled Investigation.

An integrated multidisciplinary palliative care (IMPC) program is a promising tool to improve symptom control in patients at the end of life. The aim was to study the feasibility of the IMPC program in patients at the palliative care (PC) ward. A retrospective audit, using the extended Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), was conducted on the PC ward of the university hospital. Consecutive patients who were admitted for the IMPC program during 1 year were considered. One hundred forty-eight cases (93% with underlying cancer) were analyzed. The intensity of pain levels, nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, and sleep disorders decreased at least by 50% ( P < .0001) during the 13 (median) days of IMPC. Integrated multidisciplinary PC program was associated with symptom improvements in patients at the PC ward. The information generated supports sample size calculation for a prospective controlled trial.

Walking down 'Via Dolorosa' from primary health care to the specialty pain clinic - patient and professional perceptions of inequity in rehabilitation of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse patient and professional perceptions about (in)equity of care and rehabilitation of chronic pain patients from primary health care to assessment at a specialty rehabilitation clinic. SETTING AND METHODS: This qualitative study consists one focus group interview with eight general practitioners who refer patients to pain rehabilitation clinics, 10 individual interviews with patients who were assessed at a pain rehabilitation clinic and seven interviews with professionals participating in multimodal assessment teams at a pain rehabilitation clinic. Interview analysis was conducted by the grounded theory method. RESULTS: The core category Via Dolorosa, the way of suffering and pain, captured how gender and sociocultural context may contribute to advantages and disadvantages during patient journeys from primary health care to a pain rehabilitation clinic. Patients and professionals perceived pain as a low-ranking illness, and women and men used different gendered strategies to legitimise the pain and to be taken seriously. Being 'a proper patient ready to change' and having 'likeness' between patients and professionals were viewed as advantageous in rehabilitation of pain patients. Patients with higher educational levels were perceived as easier to interact with and had better access to health care. Professional thoughts about gender norms influenced the rehabilitation options. The rehabilitation programme was seen by several professionals to be better suited for women than men, which could lead to unequal care. CONCLUSION: From an equity and gender perspective, our study highlights the complexity in rehabilitation of chronic pain patients - both from patient and professional perspectives. Awareness of gendered and the biased preconceptions and norms is crucial when professionals struggle to offer equitable health care and rehabilitation.

Acute pain management: scientific evidence, fourth edition, 2015.

This guideline summary describes the fourth edition of Acute pain management: scientific evidence, which was published by the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) and its Faculty of Pain Medicine (FPMANZCA) in December 2015. The fourth edition summarises the best available evidence on acute pain management, following methods established over the preceding three editions. It provides additional information by scoring the quality of and reporting further details on randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses. The information is condensed into key messages that provide: concise statements on each topic, showing the highest level of evidence; and clinical practice points based on clinical experience or expert opinion.

[Therapy recommendations in a pediatric outpatient pain clinic : Adherence and effectiveness of implementation]. / Therapeutische Empfehlungen in einer pädiatrischen Schmerzambulanz : Adhärenz und Wirksamkeit der Umsetzung.

BACKGROUND: Supplementary pain-related recommendations for the treatment of chronic pain in children and adolescents are an essential component of multimodal pain treatment. Studies are scarce regarding adherence to these recommendations and their effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient adherence to pain-related recommendations and their effectiveness 12 months after initial presentation of children and adolescents with chronic pain to a pediatric outpatient pain clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 413 patients were assessed using a structured telephone interview. The assessment included pain characteristics during the last 4 weeks as well as information regarding the implementation of the pain-related recommendations and the effectiveness. Due to different recommendations given to migraine patients this subgroup was dealt with separately. RESULTS: Patients reported significant improvements 12 months after the initial presentation and 29.5 % of the patients were pain free. Adherence levels and estimated effectiveness regarding recommendations, such as change of lifestyle, multimodal inpatient treatment and use of medication were high. Other recommendations, such as active relaxation and outpatient psychotherapy had low adherence levels and low estimated effectiveness. Migraine patients had a significantly higher adherence rate and estimated effectiveness regarding the recommendation use of medication than non-migraine patients. CONCLUSION: The adherence level as well as the estimated effectiveness regarding the majority of pain-related recommendations was high. Some recommendations had low adherence rates and low estimated effectiveness. These results can help to further improve the performance of outpatient clinics for children and adolescents with chronic pain.

[Structure of pain management facilities in Germany : Classification of medical and psychological pain treatment services-Consensus of the Joint Commission of the Professional Societies and Organizations for Quality in Pain Medicine]. / Struktur der schmerzmedizinischen Versorgung in Deutschland : Klassifikation schmerzmedizinischer Einrichtungen - Konsens der Gemeinsamen Kommission der Fachgesellschaften und Verbände für Qualität in der Schmerzmedizin.

On behalf of the Medical/Psychological Pain Associations, Pain Patients Alliance and the Professional Association of Pain Physicians and Psychologists, the Joint Commission of Professional Societies and Organizations for Quality in Pain Medicine, working in close collaboration with the respective presidents, has developed verifiable structural and process-related criteria for the classification of medical and psychological pain treatment facilities in Germany. Based on the established system of graded care in Germany and on existing qualifications, these criteria also argue for the introduction of a basic qualification in pain medicine. In addition to the first-ever comprehensive description of psychological pain facilities, the criteria presented can be used to classify five different levels of pain facilities, from basic pain management facilities, to specialized institutions, to the Centre for Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine. The recommendations offer binding and verifiable criteria for quality assurance in pain medicine and improved pain treatment.

Health Services for Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Kuwait: A Case Study Review.

The experience of chronic pain is universal, yet pain management services delivered by health professionals vary substantially, depending on the context and patient. This review is a part of a series that has examined the issue of chronic non-cancer pain services and management in different global cities. The review is structured as a case study of the availability of management services for people living with chronic non-cancer pain within the context of the Kuwaiti health systems, and the cases are built from evidence in the published literature identified through a comprehensive review process. The evolution of the organizational structure of the public and private health systems in Kuwait is described. These are discussed in terms of their impact on the delivery of comprehensive chronic pain management service by health professionals in Kuwait. This review also includes a description of chronic pain patient personas to highlight expected barriers as well as compliance issues with services likely to be encountered in Kuwait. The case study analysis and persona descriptions illustrate a need to move beyond pain symptom management towards considering the entire person and his/her individual experience of pain such that health care success is judged by enhancement of patient well-being rather than access to services. A road map for improving integrative chronic pain management in Kuwait is discussed.

First Dutch Consensus of Pain Quality Indicators for Pain Treatment Facilities.

BACKGROUND: There is a general consensus about the need to define and improve the quality of pain treatment facilities. Although guidelines and recommendations to improve the quality of pain practice management have been launched, provision of appropriate pain treatment is inconsistent and the quality of facilities varies widely. The aim of the study was to develop an expert-agreed list of quality indicators applicable to pain treatment facilities. The list was also intended to be used as the basis for a set of criteria for registered status of pain treatment facilities. METHODS: The University Pain Center Maastricht at the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management of the Maastricht University Medical Center conducted a 3-round Delphi study in collaboration with the Board of the Pain Section of the Dutch Society of Anesthesiologists (NVA). RESULTS: Twenty-five quality indicators were selected as relevant to 2 types of pain treatment facilities, pain clinics and pain centers. The final expert-agreed list consisted of 22 quality indicators covering 7 quality domains: supervision, availability of care, staffing level and patient load, quality policy, multidisciplinarity, regionalization, and research and education. CONCLUSIONS: This set of quality indicators may facilitate organizational evaluation and improve insight into service quality from the perspectives of patients, pain specialists, and other healthcare professionals. Recommendations for improvements to the current set of quality indicators are made. In 2014 the process of registering pain treatment facilities in the Netherlands started; facilities can register as a pain clinic or pain center.

Applying JIT principles to resident education to reduce patient delays: a pilot study in an academic medical center pain clinic.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the effect on patient waiting times, patient/doctor contact times, flow times, and session completion times of having medical trainees and attending physicians review cases before the clinic session. The major hypothesis was that review of cases prior to clinic hours would reduce waiting times, flow times, and use of overtime, without reducing patient/doctor contact time. DESIGN: Prospective quality improvement. SETTING: Specialty pain clinic within Johns Hopkins Outpatient Center, Baltimore, MD, United States. PARTICIPANTS: Two attending physicians participated in the intervention. Processing times for 504 patient visits are involved over a total of 4 months. INTERVENTION: Trainees were assigned to cases the day before the patient visit. Trainees reviewed each case and discussed it with attending physicians before each clinic session. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary measures were activity times before and after the intervention. These were compared and also used as inputs to a discrete event simulation to eliminate differences in the arrival process as a confounding factor. RESULTS: The average time that attending physicians spent teaching trainees while the patient waited was reduced, but patient/doctor contact time was not significantly affected. These changes reduced patient waiting times, flow times, and clinic session times. CONCLUSIONS: Moving some educational activities ahead of clinic time improves patient flows through the clinic and decreases congestion without reducing the times that trainees or patients interact with physicians.

Establishment of a liaison clinic for patients with intractable chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary approach has been shown to be effective for the treatment of intractable pain. However, few hospitals in Japan have established liaison clinics for such patients. In this study, we investigated the short-term results of a liaison clinic for patients with intractable chronic pain. METHODS: Study participants comprised 53 outpatients (20 men, 33 women) with intractable chronic pain who visited our hospital between April 2012 and March 2013. At baseline, patients completed a self-reported questionnaire and provided demographic and clinical information. Experts in various fields (anesthesia, orthopedic surgery, psychiatry, physical therapy, and nursing) conducted examinations of patients and attended a weekly conference during which patients' physical, psychological, and social problems were discussed and courses of treatment were determined. All patients were assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Pain Disability Assessment Scale (PDAS). Eligibility for the pain liaison outpatient clinic was evaluated using multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: After a 6-month follow-up period, no significant changes were seen in scores for the NRS, PDAS, or HADS for depression. In contrast, scores for both the PCS and HADS for anxiety were significantly reduced after 6 months of treatment (p < 0.05). HADS for anxiety was identified as a factor related to patient resistance to attending the pain liaison outpatient clinic (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This liaison clinic for patients with intractable chronic pain was able to improve patient anxiety. Severe anxiety at the initial visit represented a risk factor for dropout from the clinic.

Hamilton acute pain service safety study: using root cause analysis to reduce the incidence of adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Although intravenous patient-controlled analgesia opioids and epidural analgesia offer improved analgesia for postoperative patients treated on an acute pain service, these modalities also expose patients to some risk of serious morbidity and even mortality. Root cause analysis, a process for identifying the causal factor(s) that underlie an adverse event, has the potential to identify and address system issues and thereby decrease the chance of recurrence of these complications. METHODS: This study was designed to compare the incidence of adverse events on an acute pain service in three hospitals, before and after the introduction of a formal root cause analysis process. The "before" cohort included all patients with pain from February 2002 to July 2007. The "after" cohort included all patients with pain from January 2009 to December 2009. RESULTS: A total of 35,384 patients were tracked over the 7 yr of this study. The after cohort showed significant reductions in the overall event rate (1.47 vs. 2.35% or 1 in 68 vs. 1 in 42, the rate of respiratory depression (0.41 vs. 0.71%), the rate of severe hypotension (0.78 vs. 1.34%), and the rate of patient-controlled analgesia pump programming errors (0.0 vs. 0.08%). Associated with these results, the incidence of severe pain increased from 6.5 to 10.5%. To achieve these results, 26 unique recommendations were made of which 23 being completed, 1 in progress, and 2 not completed. CONCLUSIONS: Formal root cause analysis was associated with an improvement in the safety of patients on a pain service. The process was effective in giving credibility to recommendations, but addressing all the action plans proved difficult with available resources.

First steps toward understanding the variability in acute pain service provision and the quality of pain relief in everyday practice across the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Pain management for patients in hospital is a major problem. There is significant variation in care provision. Evidence is needed about the ways in which acute pain services are organized in order to understand whether these are linked to important differences in patient outcomes. The National Inpatient Pain Study group is a voluntary collaborative venture of inpatient pain specialists in the United Kingdom who are working toward establishing a national prospective database of service provision and activity. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article are (1) to describe current pain service provision and activity (2) to define and monitor the quality and side effects of the primary analgesic techniques, such as central neuraxial block or systemic analgesia, and identify variations in practice. METHODS: Phase 1: Surveys were conducted in two phases during 2010-2011. Information about the organization of services was collected from 121 centers via a live Website. Phase 2: The pilot clinical dataset was collected from 13 hospitals in 2011. RESULTS: Results indicated that staffing varied widely from one to nine nurses per hospital site. Twelve percent of hospitals did not routinely collect data. The main workload was orthopedic and general surgery based on data from 13 hospitals and 29,080 patients in 2011. Thirty-seven percent of patients reported a pain score of moderate to severe pain on the first assessment by the specialist pain team, and 21% reported severe pain. Nausea and vomiting was the most frequent adverse event reported. Sixty-nine major adverse events were logged, of which 64 documented respiratory depression (N = 29,080, 0.22%). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective longitudinal data has the potential to improve our understanding of variation in process and outcome measures and establish future research priorities.

[Consensus paper of the German Migraine and Headache Society on the structure of headache care facilities in Germany]. / Konsensuspapier der Deutschen Migräne- und Kopfschmerzgesellschaft zur Struktur von Kopfschmerzzentren und Kopfschmerzschwerpunktpraxen in Deutschland.

This consensus paper introduces a classification of headache care facilities on behalf of the German Migraine and Headache Society. This classification is based on the recommendations of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) and the European Headache Federation (EHF) and was adapted to reflect the specific situation of headache care in Germany. It defines three levels of headache care: headache practitioner (level 1), headache outpatient clinic (level 2) and headache centers (level 3). The objective of the publication is to define and establish reliable criteria in the field of headache care in Germany.

Features and organization of Pain Centers in the Lazio Region, Italy, in 2011.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on pain management highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in order to achieve optimal therapeutic results. Such programs can be guaranteed by the Centers for Pain Management (CPMs), in which multidisciplinary teams are able to provide advanced and specialized activities for the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of chronic benign pain. To date, information related to healthcare supply and the organizational structure of these centers in Italy is incomplete. The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of the healthcare network of the CPMs in the Lazio region. METHODS: A descriptive survey was conducted in all the 37 CPMs existing in the Lazio region in 2011 of which 28 participated. RESULTS: CPMs were located either in Universities or in public or private hospital facilities. They included a clinic, a Day Hospital service, Day surgery and day-beds. CPMs were managed by anaesthesiologists who, in most instances, did not work in a multidisciplinary team. The number of other health professionals available, such as nurses, psychologists and physiotherapists, was limited. CPMs mainly provided drug therapy, Complementary Alternative Medicine (CAM) and complex interventional treatments. The median waiting time was 30 days. The clinics were not homogeneously distributed in the region with a higher concentration in Rome (56%), followed by other provinces of the Lazio region (26%) and the province of Rome (18%). Clearly, Rome was the city which offered the greatest range of healthcare services and the highest number of consultations with patients, which significantly differed from those of the other areas (χ²=19.6 p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In 2011, the availability of CPMs was not equally distributed throughout the territory, and there was an over-utilization of the facilities in Rome and an under-utilization in the provincial areas. Moreover, this study showed a lack of a multi-professional approach to chronic pain management.

Non-cardiac chest pain: time to extend the rapid access chest pain clinic?

Non-cardiac chest pain is common. It has a low risk of coronary events, but causes considerable physical and social disability and inappropriate health-care usage. It is a heterogeneous condition, which may be caused by or associated with gastro-oesophageal, musculoskeletal or psychiatric abnormalities and sustained by psychological factors including catastrophisation, avoidance behaviour and abnormal help-seeking. These may coexist and their relative contributions may vary in different patients or at different times in an individual patient. The absence of a unitary cause probably explains why treatment studies show only moderate success. An individualised biopsychosocial approach takes account of all causative and sustaining processes and has been shown to work in pain syndromes at other sites. We suggest that this approach should be tried for chest pain using a multidisciplinary clinic model including cardiologists, psychologists and nurses linked with a Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinic.

Establishment and progress of the chest pain unit certification process in Germany and the local experiences of Mainz.

The establishment of chest pain units (CPUs) in the USA and UK has led to improvements in the prognosis of patients with chest pain and myocardial infarction, optimizing access to specialized diagnostic and therapeutic facilities and reducing costs. To establish a uniform implementation of this type of service in Germany, the German Cardiac Society (DGK) founded a 'CPU task force' in 2007, which developed a set of standard requirements and a nationwide certification programme. The recommendations for minimum standard requirements were published in 2008. As of November 2011, 132 CPUs were certified and 36 units were in the certification process. The aim of the DGK is to certify as many as 250 centres (units) throughout Germany within the next 2 years, to provide nationwide coverage. Applications from Switzerland are also being filed. Public awareness campaigns in cooperation with national league soccer teams were organized to raise awareness of the importance for early diagnosis and treatment of cardiac diseases and to publicize the existence of these new facilities. The German model of CPU certification allows nationwide and prospectively European-wide standardization of patient care and to improve adherence to international guidelines. Coupled with awareness campaigns and with the launch of a German CPU Registry, this process is aimed at improving the education and treatment of patients with chest pain and to provide scientific information about the quality of patient care.

[Intersectoral pain treatment. The Algesiologikum group]. / Sektorübergreifende schmerzmedizinische Versorgung. Der Algesiologikum-Verbund.

Cross-sectoral clinical pathways for chronic pain patients in standard and routine care are a major challenge for the German healthcare system. The Algesiologikum group has developed such clinical pathways including an essential infrastructure. Cooperation partners of the Algesiologikum group are two outpatient medical care units, one neurosurgery practice and four hospitals. In the outpatient sector as well as in the inpatient sector the Algesiologikum group provides a multidisciplinary team caring for chronic pain patients. The range of treatment in the hospitals includes multimodal, invasive and surgical pain therapy. The present report illustrates possibilities and frontiers of the Algesiologikum concept based on all patients treated since 2009.

[Integrated headache care network. Kiel Migraine and Headache Center and German National Headache Treatment Network]. / Sektorenübergreifende schmerzmedizinische Versorgung. Schmerzklinik Kiel und bundesweites Kopfschmerzbehandlungsnetz.

Migraine and other headaches affect 54 million people in Germany. They rank among the ten most severely disabling complaints and the three most expensive neurological disorders. Nevertheless, they are not adequately recognized in the healthcare system with sketchy diagnoses and inadequate treatment. This inadequate care is not primarily due to a lack of medical and scientific knowledge on the development and treatment of headaches but is predominantly due to organizational deficits in the healthcare system and in the implementation of current knowledge. To overcome the organizational barriers the national headache treatment network was initiated in Germany. For the first time it allows national cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary links between inpatient and outpatient care. A hand in hand treatment programme, better education, better information exchange between all partners and combined efforts using clearly defined treatment pathways and goals are the basis for state of the art and efficient treatment results. The treatment network is geared towards the specialized treatment of severely affected patients with chronic headache disorders. A national network of outpatient and inpatient pain therapists in both practices and hospitals works hand in hand to optimally alleviate pain in a comprehensive cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary manner. For therapy refractive disorders, a high-intensive supraregional fully inpatient treatment can be arranged. This concept offers for the first time a nationwide coordinated treatment without limitation by specialization and bureaucratic remuneration sectors.