Improving access to chronic pain care with central referral and triage: The 6-year findings from a single-entry model.

Background: Despite the established efficacy of multidisciplinary chronic pain care, barriers such as inflated referral wait times and uncoordinated care further hinder patient health care access. Aims: Here we describe the evolution of a single-entry model (SEM) for coordinating access to chronic pain care across seven hospitals in Toronto and explore the impact on patient care 6 years after implementation. Methods: In 2017, an innovative SEM was implemented for chronic pain referrals in Toronto and surrounding areas. Referrals are received centrally, triaged by a clinical team, and assigned an appointment according to the level of urgency and the most appropriate care setting/provider. To evaluate the impact of the SEM, a retrospective analysis was undertaken to determine referral patterns, patient characteristics, and referral wait times over the past 6 years. Results: Implementation of an SEM streamlined the number of steps in the referral process and led to a standardized referral form with common inclusion and exclusion criteria across sites. Over the 6-year period, referrals increased by 93% and the number of unique providers increased by 91%. Chronic pain service wait times were reduced from 299 (±158) days to 176 (±103) days. However, certain pain diagnoses such as chronic pelvic pain and fibromyalgia far exceed the average. Conclusions: The results indicate that the SEM helped reduce wait times for pain conditions and standardized the referral pathway. Continued data capture efforts can help identify gaps in care to enable further health care refinement and improvement.

Contexte: Malgré l'efficacité établie des soins multidisciplinaires dans le traitement de la douleur chronique, des obstacles tels que des délais d'attente prolongés et l'absence de coordination des soins entravent davantage l'accès des patients aux services de santé.Objectifs: Nous décrivons ici l'évolution d'un modèle à entrée unique visant à coordonner l'accès aux soins pour la douleur chronique dans sept hôpitaux de Toronto. Nous examinons également l'effet de ce modèle sur les soins aux patients six ans après sa mise en œuvre.Méthodes: En 2017, un modèle à entrée unique novateur a été mis en place pour orienter les patients souffrant de douleur chronique à Toronto et dans les régions avoisinantes. Les patients sont reçus de manière centralisée, triés par une équipe clinique et un rendez-vous leur est attribué en fonction du degré d'urgence et de l'établissement de soins ou du prestataire le plus approprié.Pour évaluer l'impact du modèle à entrée unique, une analyse rétrospective a été entreprise afin de déterminer les schémas de consultation, les caractéristiques des patients et les temps d'attente pour les demandes de consultation au cours des six dernières années.Résultats: La mise en œuvre d'un modèle à entrée unique a permis de rationaliser le nombre d'étapes du processus de demande de consultation et a conduit à l'élaboration d'un formulaire de demande de consultation normalisé comprenant des critères d'inclusion et d'exclusion communs à tous les sites. Au cours de la période de six ans, le nombre de demandes de consultation a augmenté et le nombre de prestataires uniques a augmenté de 91 %.Les temps d'attente pour les services de traitement de la douleur chronique ont diminué de 299 (±158) jours à 176 (±103) jours. Cependant, certains diagnostics de douleur, comme la douleur pelvienne chronique et la fibromyalgie, dépassent de loin la moyenne.Conclusions: Les résultats indiquent que le modèle à entrée unique a contribué à réduire les temps d'attente pour les affections douloureuses et à normaliser le parcours de consultation. La poursuite des efforts de collecte des données peut aider à recenser les lacunes dans les soins, permettant ainsi une amélioration continue des soins de santé.

Interventional anesthesia and palliative care collaboration to manage cancer pain: a narrative review.

Pain is a common symptom associated with advanced cancer. An estimated 66.4% of people with advanced cancer experience pain from their disease or treatment. Pain management is an essential component of palliative care. Opioids and adjuvant therapies are the mainstay of cancer pain management. Nevertheless, a proportion of patients may experience complex pain that is not responsive to conventional analgesia. Interventional analgesia procedures may be appropriate and necessary to manage complex, cancer-related pain. This narrative review uses a theoretical case to highlight core principles of palliative care and interventional anesthesia, and the importance of collaborative, interdisciplinary care. An overview and discussion of pragmatic considerations of peripheral nervous system interventional analgesic procedures and neuraxial analgesia infusions are provided.

Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Neurolysis for a Malignant Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumor: A Case Report.

The perineural administration of alcohol or phenol results in protein denaturation and, consequently, neurolysis. This can produce long-lasting analgesia, with a duration of 3-6 months. Although neurolytic blocks for the brachial plexus have been described in multiple review articles and textbooks, they are rarely performed. As such, little is known about the efficacy and adverse effect profile of this commonly described treatment. In this article, we report the outcomes of a patient who underwent a left brachial plexus neurolytic block for the management of upper limb pain arising from a malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor.

Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections for Treating Lumbosacral Radicular Pain from Herniated Intervertebral Discs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Steroids often are administered into the epidural space through the transforaminal epidural (TFE) route to treat lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated intervertebral discs. However, their efficacy and safety compared with transforaminal epidural local anesthetics (LAs) or saline injections is unclear. METHODS: We reviewed randomized controlled trials that compared TFE injections of steroids (with or without LA) with LA or saline in adult outpatients with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated intervertebral disks. Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and Google Scholar up to February 2015. Data on scores of numerical rating scale for pain, validated scores for measuring physical disability and quality of life, and incidence of surgery measured at 1 month to 2 years after the interventions were meta-analyzed. Strength of evidence was classified with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials including 771 patients (366 in steroid and 405 in comparator groups) were included. There was variability in the studies in the dose of TFE steroids, frequency, and number of procedures. Patients who received TFE steroids reported a significant, but clinically modest, reduction in mean pain scores (0-10 scale) compared with LA/saline (-0.97 points; 95% confidence interval, -1.42 to -0.51 points; P < 0.0001, I² = 90%; GRADE weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence) at 3 months after the interventions. TFE steroids did not decrease physical disability at 1 to 3 months after the intervention (GRADE strong recommendation ↓; high-quality evidence) or incidence of surgery at 12 months after the intervention (GRADE strong recommendation ↓; moderate-quality evidence) compared with LA/saline. CONCLUSIONS: TFE steroids provide modest analgesic benefit at 3 months in patients with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated intervertebral disks, but they have no impact on physical disability or incidence of surgery. There was a high degree of heterogeneity among the publications included in this meta-analysis. Well-designed, large, randomized studies are required to evaluate appropriate dosages, adverse effects, number of procedures, and the effect of this intervention on psychological disability and quality of life.

Evaluation of sonoanatomy relevant to performing stellate ganglion blocks using anterior and lateral simulated approaches: an observational study.

PURPOSE: Stellate (cervicothoracic) ganglion block (SGB) can be associated with serious complications, such as esophageal and vascular injury. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential for vascular and esophageal injury in healthy subjects by examining the sonoanatomy of the neck relevant to the SGB at the sixth (C6) and seventh (C7) cervical vertebral levels and determining the incidence of blood vessels and esophagi in the simulated path of needle insertion in the conventional and two different ultrasound-guided approaches used to perform a SGB. METHODS: Ultrasound scanning of the neck at the C6 and C7 cervical vertebral levels was performed in 100 adult subjects, and the following measurements were obtained: the degree of deviation of the esophagus relative to the larynx/trachea; the likelihood of encountering a vessel in the simulated path of needle insertion in the two different approaches to SGB; the incidence of the vertebral artery being situated outside the foramen transversarium at the C6 level; and the distance of the simulated path of needle insertion in the anterior and lateral approaches to SGB at the C6 level. RESULTS: The position of the esophagus was found to be variable but lateral to the airway in 50% and 74% of the subjects at C6 and C7, respectively. The esophagus covered more than half of the distance between the airway and the carotid artery in 14% and 44% of the subjects at the C6 and C7 levels, respectively. With the anterior approach, a major vessel was observed in up to 29% and 43% of patients at the C6 and C7 levels, respectively. The vertebral artery was outside the foramen transversarium in 7% of subjects at the C6 level. CONCLUSION: Major blood vessels and the esophagus are in close proximity to needle pathways during the anterior approach to SGB performed with either anatomic landmarking or fluoroscopic guidance. An ultrasound-guided lateral approach at the C6 level may possibly confer a greater margin of safety for performing SGB.

Effect of intraoperative injection of 0.25% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine on intraoperative blood loss in FESS.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare differences in intraoperative blood loss, mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), and duration of surgery when 0.25% bupivacaine with 1:200000 epinephrine is injected, preoperatively, versus normal saline (NS), during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS). METHODS: A prospective, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study was performed. Part I involved 46 patients who were infiltrated with 0.25% bupivacaine with 1:200000 epinephrine on one side of the nose and sterile NS on the other (control). Part II involved 30 patients infiltrated with 0.25% bupivacaine with 1:200000 epinephrine bilaterally and 30 patients with NS bilaterally (control). Patient demographics, preoperative MABP, intraoperative MABP, duration of surgery, and total estimated blood loss (EBL) were recorded for each side (Part I) and case (Part II). RESULTS: For part I, there were 46 patients (mean age, 49 years), 24 women and 22 men. MABP was 72 mmHg for each side (p = 0.97). Preoperative MABP was 93 mmHg. Duration of surgery was 48 minutes for epinephrine side and 45 minutes for control (p = 0.17). Total EBL was 185 mL for the epinephrine side and 197 mL for control (p = 0.53). For Part II, there were 60 patients (mean age, 56 years), 28 women and 32 men. The MABP was 77 mmHg for the epinephrine group and 72 mmHg for control (p = 0.048). Preoperative MABP was 100 mmHg for the epinephrine group and 97 mmHg for control (p = 0.37). Duration of surgery was 2.25 hours for the epinephrine group and 2.08 hours for control (p = 0.17). Total EBL was 589 mL for the epinephrine group and 538 mL for control (p = 0.64). CONCLUSION: There was no significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss during FESS when local anesthetic containing epinephrine was used compared with infiltration with NS. More importantly, Part II shows a significantly higher MABP associated with infiltration of epinephrine. Parts I and II did not show a significant difference in preoperative MABP or duration of surgery.

Prospective, double-blind, randomized trial evaluating patient satisfaction, bleeding, and wound healing using biodegradable synthetic polyurethane foam (NasoPore) as a middle meatal spacer in functional endoscopic sinus surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare NasoPore (Stryker Canada, Hamilton, ON, Canada) and a traditional middle meatal spacer (MMS) composed of Merocel ((Medtronic Xomed, Mississauga, ON, Canada) placed in a vinyl glove finger in functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) with regard to postoperative bleeding, wound healing, and patient comfort. DESIGN: A prospective, double-blind, randomized trial of 30 consecutive adults (age > 16 years) with chronic or recurrent acute rhinosinusitis undergoing bilateral FESS, excluding patients with significant difference in their sinus disease bilaterally using preoperative computed tomographic scan assessment (Lund-McKay scores > 2). SETTING: Tertiary hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia. METHODS: Preoperatively, all patients were randomized and blinded to receive NasoPore (Stryker Canada) on one side and Merocel on the other. Patients completed a questionnaire during their first postoperative week relating to their subjective assessment of pain, pressure, nasal blockage, swelling, and bleeding. Patients were evaluated 1 week postoperatively for packing removal and debridement, and associated discomfort and bleeding with the removal, as well as overall preference for either pack. A clinician blinded to the randomization process objectively assessed the healing status of the nasal cavities at 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction, bleeding, and wound healing postoperatively. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled. There was no significant difference between the Lund-Mackay scores in both groups preoperatively (p = .80). Postoperatively, there was no significant difference between both groups with regard to patients' pain, pressure, blockage, swelling, bleeding, or discomfort on packing removal (p > .05). There was no statistical difference in the amount of bleeding associated with packing removal (p = .32). Mucosal grading at 4 weeks was significantly better for the traditional MMS (p = .03), but this difference disappeared at the 12-week visit (p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: The absorbable pack did not significantly reduce the risk of bleeding or patient discomfort compared with a traditional nonabsorbable MMS and was associated with significantly slower mucosal healing initially, an effect that disappeared after 3 months postoperatively. There was no significant patient preference for either pack.