Assessment and treatment at a pain clinic: A one-year follow-up of patients with chronic pain.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pain is one of the most common reasons for patients to seek primary health care. Pain relief is likely to be achieved for patients suffering from acute pain, but for individuals with chronic pain it is more likely that the condition will persist. These patients have the option of being referred to specialised pain clinics. However, the complexity surrounding chronic pain patients is not well studied in these settings. This study aimed to describe patients with chronic pain referred to a pain clinic by using the information submitted during their first visit and one year later and also to identify associations between baseline characteristics and improvements in health-related quality of life in the follow-up. METHODS: This was a longitudinal observational study of a sample consisting of 318 patients referred to a pain clinic. One group of patients containing 271 individuals (median age 48, 64% females) was assessed and received conventional pain treatment (CPT group) and a second group of 47 patients (median age 53, 64% females) was assessed by a pain specialist and referred back to their physician with a treatment recommendation (assessment only, AO group). Patient-reported outcome measures in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), pain intensity (VAS), mental health (HADS), insomnia (ISI), pain-related disability (PDI), kinesiophobia (TSK) and sense of coherence (SOC) were collected at the first visit and one year later. RESULTS: At baseline, the CPT group reported a low EQ-5D Index (median (md) 0.157) and EQ VAS (md 40) as well as considerable high, current pain intensity VAS (md 58), HADS anxiety (md 8), ISI (md 17), PDI (md 36) and TSK (md 39). The AO group showed similar problems (no significant differences compared to the CPT group), except for ISI, where the AO group reported less severe problems. At the one-year follow-up, the CPT group had a statistically significant improvement in EQ-5D, VAS, ISI, PDI and TSK. In the AO group no significant changes were observed. In the CPT group there was an association between a high ISI level at baseline and an improved EQ-5D Index in the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The study describes rarely explored groups of patients with chronic pain at a pain clinic. Severe pain problems were present in both groups at their first visit. A statistically significant improvement could be seen in the group that was conventionally treated while this was not the case among those subjects who were assessed and referred. The results imply, that relatively limited treatment strategies were helpful for the patients' health-related quality of life. Despite these improvements, the patients were not fully recovered, pointing to the chronicity of pain conditions and the need of support for many patients. IMPLICATIONS: Increased knowledge about assessment, selection and treatment at pain clinics is important to improve the quality of the work performed at these clinics. Despite limited resources, further efforts should be made to collect comparable, valid data on a regular base from pain clinics in order to develop recommendation models.

Needs and requests--patients and physicians voices about improving the management of spinal cord injury neuropathic pain.

PURPOSE: The present purpose was to explore patients' and involved physicians' needs and requests for improving their management of neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: Sixteen patients with SCI and neuropathic pain, and nine physicians, were interviewed in focus-groups or individual interviews. An emergent design was used and the interviews and analyses were carried out in parallel, making it possible to use and deepen new emerging knowledge. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and processed according to content analysis. RESULTS: A final model with four themes described the results. Three themes covered the current situation: limitations in structure, lack of knowledge and competence, and frustrations. A fourth theme, needs and requests, described suggestions by patients and physicians for future improvements. Suggestions included increased participation, increased patient involvement in the pain rehabilitation process, support in the process of learning to live with pain, implementation of multi-modal pain rehabilitation, and the use of complementary treatments for neuropathic pain. CONCLUSION: Neuropathic pain following SCI needs to be assessed and treated using a structured, inter-disciplinary, multi-modal rehabilitation approach involving patients in planning and decision-making. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: For improving SCI neuropathic pain management, there is a great need for individually-tailored management, planned in a dialogue on equal terms between health care and the patient. Patients desire continuity and regularity and the possibility of receiving complementary treatments for SCI neuropathic pain. Access to structured pain rehabilitation is needed. Support and tools need to be provided in the learning-to-live with pain process.

Using a profile of a modified Brief ICF Core Set for chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain with qualifiers for baseline assessment in interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation.

AIM: To describe the use of a "workable" visual profile of function and disability, based on a modified Brief International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for chronic widespread pain, for initial assessments in a clinical setting of interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation teams. METHOD: The Brief ICF Core Set was slightly adapted to meet the needs of an interdisciplinary rehabilitation medicine team working in a university outpatient clinic and admitting patients referred from primary care. The Core Set categories were made measurable by means of eg, assessment instruments and clinical investigations. The resulting profile was given a workable shape to facilitate rapid understanding of the initial assessment outcome. RESULTS: Individual patients showed different profiles of problems and resources, which facilitated individual rehabilitation planning. At the level of the study group, the profiles for the Core Set component Body Functions showed that most patients had severe impairment in the sensation of pain and exercise tolerance categories of function, but most had resources in the motivation and memory categories of function. Likewise, for the component Activities, most patients had limitations in lifting and carrying objects and remunerative employment, but most had resources in intimate relationships and family relationships. At first, the use of the modified Brief ICF Core Set in the team conference was rather time consuming, but after a couple of months of experience, the team assessment took approximately 30 minutes to complete per patient. CONCLUSION: The profile of the modified Brief ICF Core Set for chronic widespread pain served as a common platform, facilitating cooperation between the rehabilitation team members and providing a uniform language, which helped in structuring the clinical work. The profile also provided an easily accessible, overall view of the patient's problems and resources, which helped in understanding the functioning situation of the patient.