Staff and organizational requirements for pain services in hospitals : A recommendation from the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches.With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments.

[Staff and organizational requirements for pain services in hospitals : A recommendation from the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine]. / Personelle und organisatorische Voraussetzungen für Schmerzdienste in Krankenhäusern : Empfehlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin e. V.

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches.With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments.

[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.

[Postoperative pain management after ambulatory surgery. A survey of anaesthesiologists]. / Postoperative Schmerztherapie nach ambulanten Operationen. Eine Befragung der behandelnden Anästhesisten.

BACKGROUND: Data on practice and quality of postoperative pain treatment by anaesthesiologists after ambulatory surgery are sparse. The current survey enrolled anaesthesiologists in private practice who were responsible for pain therapy after ambulatory surgery. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the implementation of the German S3 guidelines for acute and postoperative pain therapy in the outpatient setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2,156 anaesthesiologists in private practice received a postal questionnaire which was limited to those anaesthesiologists who were responsible for postoperative pain therapy. The questionnaire included items such as types of surgery, techniques of anaesthesia and analgesic drugs used for pain management during the immediate postoperative phase and for the treatment at home as well as details of pain measurement. RESULTS: Out of 116 responses 108 could be analyzed covering a total of 86,616 patients receiving postoperative pain therapy, 80% of the operations were performed using general anaesthesia and local anaesthesia was additionally used in 9% of the institutions. In the perioperative period 66% of the respondents administered non-steroidal-antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), 62% metamizol (dipyrone), 41% paracetamol (acetaminophen) and 73% opioids. After discharge 81% of the responding anaesthesiologists prescribed NSAIDs, 55% metamizol and 47% opioids for pain relief at home. Only 40% of the respondents measured and documented pain intensity. Nearly all respondents (93%) were satisfied with their pain management after outpatient surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Pain therapy after ambulatory surgery significantly varied with respect to the methods, drugs and measures of quality assurance used by anaesthesiologists in private praxis. This survey demonstrated that the national guidelines of acute pain therapy have only been partially implemented.

[A survey of labour pain management in Germany]. / Eine Umfrage zur geburtshilflichen Schmerztherapie in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: In a survey of German hospitals with obstetric units, data on anaesthesia and analgesia in obstetric pain management were collected. METHODS: At each of 918 hospitals with obstetric units, the head of the anaesthetic department received a questionnaire on obstetric pain management. RESULTS: The response rate was 47.1%. On average, there were 748+/-407 (median 663;1st/3rd quartiles 309/1,303) births per year and hospital, 69.4% with spontaneous vaginal delivery. Opioids were the systemic analgesics most frequently administered in the delivery rooms. Epidural analgesia (EA) was given to 17.5+/-12.6% of the parturients. The number of deliveries per annum had a significant influence on the frequency of EA (<500 deliveries/year: 12.7%, 500-1000/year: 18.6%, >1,000/year: 21.6%). The preferred local anaesthetics were ropivacaine und bupivacaine. When an opioid was given this was almost always sufentanil. In 16% of the responding hospitals adrenaline was added to the epidural test bolus. CONCLUSION: EA is the mainstream method of relieving labour pains in almost all German hospitals, but is used significantly more often in hospitals with rather high numbers of yearly deliveries than in hospitals in which there are few deliveries per year.

[Current practices in obstetrical analgesia in German university clinics. Results of a 1996 survey. Part 2]. / Aktuelle Praxis der Analgesie in der Geburtshilfe an den deutschen Universitätsklinika. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage 1996. Teil 2.

UNLABELLED: Obviously there is a world-wide trend towards regional analgesia for pain relief during delivery. Data on the current practice in Germany are lacking. METHODS: In 1996 questionnaires on obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia were mailed to all university departments of anaesthesia. RESULTS: All 38 university hospitals with obstetric units replied (100%). Mean annual delivery rate was 1156. Epidural analgesia (EA) (n = 22), intramuscular injection of opioids (n = 18), and non-opioids as a suppository (n = 17) were often used for pain relief during labour. Intravenous injections (n = 12) or pudendus anaesthesia (n = 7) were practised as well. Entonox (N2O/O2), paracervical blocks or transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS) was rarely used. EA for relief of labour pain was offered in all university hospitals. Twelve of them had an epidural rate of less than 10%, in nine the rate was 10-19%, in eight hospitals 20-29% and 30% or more in nine. Indication for EA was a demand by the parturient (n = 34), by the obstetrician (n = 26) or the midwife (n = 18), predominantly because of prolonged labour (n = 32) or significant pain (n = 21). Half of the university departments used an epidural combination of local anaesthetics (bupivacaine) and opioids (sufentanil (n = 12) and/or fentanyl (n = 9)). In all but one department the application of an epidural catheter was performed by anaesthesiologists exclusively. In some hospitals obstetricians (n = 10) or midwives (n = 4) were allowed to give epidural top-up injections. Of the 38 university departments 11 had an anaesthesiologists on duty 24 h a day responsible for the obstetric unit exclusively. CONCLUSION: In 1977, 14 of 18 university departments of anaesthesiology offered epidural analgesia for parturients. This option was available in all university departments in 1996. A mean rate of 10-20% epidurals for vaginal delivery is well within the limits reported from other countries, whereas the rate of regional anaesthesia for scheduled caesarean section (40%) still is rather low in Germany, as reported in part 1 of this survey (Anaesthesist 1998;47:59-63).