Nurses' perception of pediatric pain and pain assessment in the Japanese PICU.

BACKGROUND: Nurses play an essential role in pain management in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). However, their perceptions regarding pediatric pain and current practice of pain assessment in Japanese PICUs remain unknown. METHODS: In January 2021, we conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional survey across 35 PICUs in Japan. A structured questionnaire which focused on nurses' perceptions of pediatric pain and pain assessment was developed, pilot-tested, and revised. Twenty copies of the questionnaire were sent to each institution and were distributed to the nursing staff. RESULTS: A total of 356 nurses from 22 institutions responded. Median age of the respondents was 33 years and 84.6% were female. Median length of nursing experience and PICU experience were 10 and 4 years, respectively. Use of pain scales for assessing pain in children who can self-report pain, preverbal children, and children unable to self-report pain due to cognitive impairment were 90.7%, 55.9%, and 50.0%, respectively. Nurses' satisfaction regarding pain management in their PICU was 31.9% and their confidence in pain assessment and management were 32.6% and 44.9%, respectively. Lack of knowledge (95.8%), difficulty assessing pain in children (95.2%), and delay in physician's action (91.8%) were the most perceived barriers to optimal pain management. CONCLUSIONS: The use of pain scales is insufficient and nurses' satisfaction proved to be extremely low in the Japanese PICUs. Substantial effort is required to enhance the level of current pain management and improve outcomes.

Opiate vs non-opiate prescription medication for pain control after endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis.

PURPOSE: Research indicates that most providers give opiates after endoscopic sinonasal surgery. The effectiveness of non-opiate medications after sinonasal surgery is poorly understood and most studies do not assess medication failure. This study compares oral opiate, oral opiate and topical steroid, and oral non-opiate pain control. Patient call-backs are used as a proxy for pain medication failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study compares three medication regiments after sinonasal surgery for 180 adults with chronic rhinosinusitis. Patients were instructed to take acetaminophen for mild pain. For moderate/severe pain, patients used: 1) oxycodone-acetaminophen, 2) oxycodone-acetaminophen + budesonide nasal rinses, or 3) meloxicam + acetaminophen. Patients were instructed to call clinic if pain was not controlled. Descriptive statistics compared cohorts. Chi-square tests compared call-backs between cohorts. Logistic regression adjusted for baseline differences in covariates, comorbidities, and operative sites. RESULTS: Cohorts had similar age, sex distribution, disease features, and extent of surgery. The meloxicam cohort had less subjects with pain disorders. The oxycodone cohort had less subjects with diabetes, septoplasty, and turbinate reduction. After adjusting for baseline differences and using oxycodone as the reference group (n = 50), the odds of calling clinic for poorly controlled pain was 0.18 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.05-0.6) in the meloxicam cohort (n = 45) and 0.19 (95% CI:0.07-0.5) in the oxycodone + budesonide rinses cohort (n = 85). CONCLUSION: In this study, both meloxicam and oxycodone + budesonide rinses were more effective at controlling pain after sinonasal surgery than oxycodone alone.

Subcutaneous injection of diclofenac for the treatment of pain following minor orthopedic surgery (DIRECT study): a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Parenteral diclofenac is frequently used for analgesia following minor orthopedic interventions. Currently available diclofenac formulations are for intramuscular (IM) or intravenous injection. A new 1 mL volume formulation of diclofenac containing hydroxypropyl-ß-cyclodextrin (HPßCD) allows both SC and IM administration. The objective of this open-label, randomized, parallel group, active-controlled study was to assess the safety and efficacy of 75 mg diclofenac HPßCD, administered SC or IM, compared with IM Voltaren® 75 mg in inpatients undergoing minor orthopedic surgeries with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. METHODS: A total of 325 patients were randomized to treatment. Surgery-related pain was comparable between groups before treatment and rapidly declined in all patients following diclofenac injection. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed local tolerability up to 18 hours postinjection (redness, swelling, and hardening at the injection site each scored on a 4-point scale where 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe). RESULTS: Local tolerability was found to be optimal for all the injected formulations, with mean overall scores (0 to 9) of 0.57, 0.31, and 0.26, for diclofenac HPßCD SC, diclofenac HPßCD IM, and Voltaren® IM, respectively. Consistently, the overall tolerability as judged by the patients and investigators was reported as good or excellent in more than 90% of cases in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the study results indicate that safety and efficacy were similar irrespective of the diclofenac formulation used; thus, the new SC diclofenac HPßCD has an acceptable tolerability profile and may be considered a valid alternative to IM-delivered diclofenac formulations.

Adherence to subcutaneous anti-TNFα agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is largely influenced by pain and skin sensations at the injection site.

AIM: The aims of this prospective study were to determine the dimension of adherence in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving subcutaneously administered anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNFα) agents and to evaluate the influence of injection site pain and skin perceptions following subcutaneous administration of anti-TNFα drugs on patients' adherence. METHOD: An inception cohort of patients starting subcutaneously administered anti-TNFα treatment was enrolled. Injection site pain perception was assessed through the Self-Injection Assessment Pain Questionnaire (SIAPQ), and adherence to treatment was ascertained by the Compliance Questionnaire for Rheumatology (CQR5). Associations between beliefs and non-adherence, and the influence of demographic (age, disease duration, educational level), clinical (body mass index, patient global assessment, physician global assessment, Numerical Rating Scale of pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Simplified Disease Activity Index, and comorbidities measured by the modified Rheumatic Disease Comorbidty Index), and radiographic (Simple Erosion Narrowing Score) variables were assessed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Adherence data over a 12-month interval were available for 193 patients. Of these, 21.7% reported non-adherence to anti-TNFα therapy. No difference (P = .383) was found for anti-TNFα drugs (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol and golimumab). In the logistic model, age (P = .0029), higher disease activity (P = .020), low numbers of comorbidity conditions (P = .0004), injection site pain and skin perception (P = .0008), were significantly associated with increased likelihood of medication adherence. CONCLUSION: Adherence is influenced by both demographic characteristics (age) and clinical factors (disease activity, comorbidity burden and injection site pain and skin perception) in RA patients.

A phase III wait-listed randomised controlled trial of novel targeted inter-professional clinical education intervention to improve cancer patients' reported pain outcomes (The Cancer Pain Assessment (CPAS) Trial): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Variations in care models contribute to cancer pain being under-recognised and under-treated in half of all patients with cancer. International and national cancer pain management guidelines are achievable with minimal investment but require practice changes. While much of the cancer pain research over the preceding decades has focused on management interventions, little attention has been given to achieving better adherence to recommended cancer pain guideline screening and assessment practices. This trial aims to reduce unrelieved cancer pain by improving cancer and palliative doctors' and nurses' ('clinicians') pain assessment capabilities through a targeted inter-professional clinical education intervention delivered to participants' mobile devices ('mHealth'). METHODS: A wait-listed, randomised control trial design. Cancer and/or palliative care physicians and nurses employed at one of the six participating sites across Australia will be eligible to participate in this trial and, on enrolment, will be allocated to the active or wait-listed arm. Participants allocated to the active arm will be invited to complete the mHealth cancer pain assessment intervention. In this trial, mHealth is defined as medical or public health practice supported by mobile devices (i.e. phones, patient monitoring devices, personal digital assistants and other wireless devices). This mHealth intervention integrates three evidence-based elements, namely: the COM-B theoretical framework; spaced learning pedagogy; and audit and feedback. This intervention will be delivered via the QStream online platform to participants' mobile devices over four weeks. The trial will determine if a tailored mHealth intervention, targeting clinicians' cancer pain assessment capabilities, is effective in reducing self-reported cancer pain scores, as measured by a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). DISCUSSION: If this mHealth intervention is found to be effective, in addition to improving cancer pain assessment practices, it will provide a readily transferable evidence-based framework that could readily be applied to other evidence practice gaps and a scalable intervention that could be administered simultaneously to multiple clinicians across diverse geographical locations. Moreover, if found to be cost-effective, it will help transform clinical continuing professional development. In summary, this mHealth intervention will provide health services with an opportunity to offer an evidence-based, pedagogically robust, cost-effective, scalable training alternative. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12618001103257 . Registered on 3 July 2018.