[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 therapy in Germany - what is the difference between initial outpatient and inpatient treatment? : Assessment based on the KEDOQ pain dataset]. / Schmerztherapeutische Versorgung in Deutschland ­ was unterscheidet ambulante und stationäre Patienten zu Behandlungsbeginn? : Eine Auswertung auf Basis des KEDOQ-Schmerz-Datensatzes.

A comparison of chronic pain patients in outpatient and inpatient treatment settings regarding pain-related and psychological characteristics, has not yet been systematically analyzed. The core documentation and quality assurance in pain therapy (KEDOQ-Schmerz) is a quality assurance system for documentation and quality management of pain therapy in different treatment settings. The system was initiated by the German Pain Society. We used KEDOQ-Schmerz data to describe differences between patients being treated in outpatient and inpatient settings with respect to social, pain-related and psychological factors. In total, the set of KEDOQ-Schmerz data analyzed included information from 4705 patients (from 13 clinics) collected between January 2012 and April 2016. Patients received either outpatient (n = 2682) or inpatient (n = 2023) treatment. The data analyzed comprised sociodemographic, pain-related and psychological data collected through the German Pain Questionnaire (DSF) at the beginning of treatment as well as information about pain chronification and pain localization provided by practitioners. The statistical analysis was carried out by descriptive and comparative data analysis using univariate and multivariate statistical methods. Patients with inpatient treatment were significantly older, more often female and more often had multiple pain localizations. They described stronger pain intensity and more frequently had a higher Mainz Pain Staging System (MPSS) score of pain chronification. They described a significantly poorer physical and mental health-related quality of life in the short form (SF-12) health survey, had significantly higher depression, anxiety and stress values (DASS) and a poorer habitual well-being in the Marburg questionnaire on habitual well-being (MFHW). Significant group differences had only small effect sizes. Even though most predictors for the inpatient treatment setting in multivariate analysis were significant, in total they explained less than 5% of the variance. The results indicate that pain therapy in specialized pain settings more and more has to manage patients with higher pain chronification, higher pain-related stress and previous therapy experience. The differences in patient characteristics between treatment settings are mostly clinically unimportant. Differences in clinical features do not declare the allocation to one treatment setting or the other.

[Healthcare services research on pain in Germany. A survey]. / Versorgungsforschung zu Schmerz in Deutschland. Eine Bestandsaufnahme.

Within the last ten years healthcare services research has developed into an independent interdisciplinary field of research. A selective search of the literature was conducted in the database Google Scholar and the database on healthcare services research in Germany (http://versorgungsforschung-deutschland.de) for healthcare services research projects on pain in Germany. Healthcare services research projects were conducted by pharmaceutical companies, patient self-help organizations, scientific societies, statutory health insurance companies and university departments on acute and chronic pain. Valid data on the epidemiology, grading and treatment of chronic pain are available. There was an overuse of opioids and invasive procedures in patients with chronic low back pain, fibromyalgia syndrome and somatoform pain disorders. Databases for patients with chronic pain are currently constructed by pain societies. The fragmentation of data from health insurance companies, old age pension insurances, clinical institutions and population surveys and inconsistencies in diagnosing or encoding chronic pain impede the carrying out of significant longitudinal studies. Based on the data available, the needs of care for patients with chronic pain and the necessary care services cannot be derived. Important topics of future healthcare services research on pain are longitudinal studies on the cost efficacy and risks of inpatient and outpatient pain therapy based on routine data of health insurance companies, old age pension insurances and pain registries, longitudinal studies on "patient careers" (i.e. sequences of healthcare) and the identification of potential starting points for control of healthcare.

[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.

[Pre-existing pain as comorbidity in postoperative acute pain service]. / Vorbestehender Schmerz als Komorbidität im postoperativen Akutschmerzdienst.

BACKGROUND: Pre-existing or chronic pain is a relevant risk factor for severe postoperative pain. The prevalence of pre-existing and chronic pain in hospital depends on the time definition used and is approximately 44 % and 33%, at 3 or 6 months, respectively. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and importance of pre-existing pain in patients treated by a postoperative acute pain service (APS) and to evaluate the requirements for treatment and resources as well as its quality in this context. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study involved an evaluation of all visits by the APS of the University Hospital in Göttingen over an 8-week period including patient subjective quality assessment on the basis of the quality improvement in postoperative pain therapy (QUIPS) questionnaire. Pre-existing pain (>12 weeks) was assessed by recording patients history of pain by members of the APS. The results from patients with and without pre-existing pain were compared. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients (38% female, 62% male, aged 15-88 years old, mean age 59.8 ± 14.4 years) were seen by the APS on 633 occasions. Of these patients 91% had been admitted to hospital for surgery (66% for tumor surgery, 8% joint replacement, 9% other joint surgery and 16% other interventions), 50% had acute postoperative pain without pre-existing pain, 50% had had pre-existing pain for at least 12 weeks, 31% had chronic non-cancer pain and 19% pain possibly related to cancer. Patients with pre-existing pain showed no significant differences in the treatment requirements (e.g. adjustment of medication), use of resources (e.g. number of visits to the APS and time spent in hospital) and quality of care (e.g. pain intensity, functional aspects, side effects and complications) in the setting of the APS. However, there was an additional subsequent support by chronic pain and palliative care services. CONCLUSION: Pre-existing pain is a common comorbidity in surgery patients treated by the APS. There were no significant differences in treatment requirements and quality of care between the patients. This is in contrast to other studies of postoperative pain management which showed that patients with pre-existing postoperative pain had higher pain intensity. This indicates indirectly that the presence of pre-existing pain should be further evaluated as a potentially useful indication for the support by an APS. However there is an urgent need for further studies to clarify whether this indirect effect can be replicated at other hospitals or in other patient collectives. Also it has to be clarified what benefits pain patients have from this kind of treatment: if they benefit from the APS in general or from the special technique, if there is a long-term effect lasting beyond treatment in the APS or if this group of patients would benefit in general from multiprofessional and non-invasive concepts of acute pain treatment.