Randomized controlled study of pain education in patients receiving radiotherapy for painful bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Although short-course radiotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with painful bone metastases, pain is not always sufficiently controlled. We therefore investigated the additional effect of a nurse-led pain education program on pain control and quality of life (QoL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter study, patients with solid tumor bone metastases and a worst pain intensity of ≥5 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) were randomized between care as usual (control-group) and care as usual plus the Pain Education Program (PEP-group). PEP consisted of a structured interview and personalized education with follow-up phone calls. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory, EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and BM22 at week 0, 1, 4, 8 and 12. The primary outcome was pain control, defined as the number of patients whose worst pain intensity was <5 on a 0-10 NRS after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were time to reach control of pain (NRS < 5), mean worst pain and average pain, and QoL at weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12. RESULTS: Of 308 included patients, 182 (92 PEP-group) completed 12 weeks follow-up. At 12 weeks, more patients in the PEP-group (71%) compared to the control-group (52%) reported pain control (P =.008). In the PEP-group, pain control was reached earlier than in the control-group (median 29 days versus 56 days; P =.003). Mean worst and average pain decreased in both groups but decreased more in the PEP-group. QoL did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of PEP to care as usual for patients treated with radiotherapy for painful bone metastases resulted in less pain and faster pain control.

A methodology to systematically analyze the hospital discharge of terminally ill patients.

To provide an appropriate method to systematically analyze the hospital discharge of terminally ill patients especially the cooperation between hospital and community nurses and the quality of the discharge handovers. To evaluate the hospital discharge process of terminally ill patients in an academic hospital in the Netherlands using the proposed method.Data were collected from a prospective cohort of all terminally ill patients discharged from the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, between June and November 2014. The hospital discharges were assessed using 2 questionnaires: an inventory questionnaire, to determine the required care, and an evaluation questionnaire, to evaluate the care actually organized and the discharge handovers. The inventory questionnaire was completed prior to discharge and the evaluation questionnaire between 3 to 7 days after discharge.Around 130 consecutive patients were included. The discharge took place on the desired date in 86% of cases and the average overall discharge grade on a 10-point scale was 7.4 (range: 3-9.5). In 23% of cases discrepancies between required and provided care were identified and medication queries existed in 29%.This study provides a methodology to analyze the hospital discharge procedure of terminally ill patients that can be utlized in any hospital. Structured analysis of the discharge process is valuable and identifies where improvements can be made. Within the study cohort the home care could be arranged at short notice and was considered sufficient. However, in a significant proportion of patients a discrepancy between required and arranged care and queries about medication were identified.

Feasibility of hospital-initiated non-facilitator assisted advance care planning documentation for patients with palliative care needs.

BACKGROUND: Advance Care Planning (ACP) and its documentation, accessible to healthcare professionals regardless of where patients are staying, can improve palliative care. ACP is usually performed by trained facilitators. However, ACP conversations would be more tailored to a patient's specific situation if held by a patient's clinical healthcare team. This study assesses the feasibility of ACP by a patient's clinical healthcare team, and analyses the documented information including current and future problems within the palliative care domains. METHODS: This multicentre study was conducted at the three Groningen Palliative Care Network hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients discharged from hospital with a terminal care indication received an ACP document from clinical staff (non-palliative care trained staff at hospitals I and II; specialist palliative care nurses at hospital III) after they had held ACP conversations. An anonymised copy of this ACP document was analysed. Documentation rates of patient and contact details were investigated, and documentation of current and future problems were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: One hundred sixty ACP documents were received between April 2013 and December 2014, with numbers increasing for each consecutive 3-month time period. Advance directives were frequently documented (82%). Documentation rates of current problems in the social (24%), psychological (27%) and spiritual (16%) domains were low compared to physical problems (85%) at hospital I and II, but consistently high (> 85%) at hospital III. Of 545 documented anticipated problems, 92% were physical or care related in nature, 2% social, 5% psychological, and < 1% spiritual. Half of the anticipated non-physical problems originated from hospital III. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-initiated ACP documentation by a patient's clinical healthcare team is feasible: the number of documents received per time period increased throughout the study period, and overall, documentation rates were high. Nonetheless, symptom documentation predominantly regards physical symptoms. With the involvement of specialist palliative care nurses, psychological and spiritual problems are addressed more frequently. Whether palliative care education for non-palliative care experts will improve identification and documentation of non-physical problems remains to be investigated.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient-based educational interventions to improve cancer-related pain.

BACKGROUND: Despite existing guidelines to assess and manage pain, the management of cancer-related pain is often suboptimal with patients often being undertreated. Inadequate pain management may be due to patient-related barriers. Educating patients may decrease these barriers. However, the effect of pain education on patient-related outcomes is still unclear. This review aimed to study the effect of educational interventions on cancer-related pain. DESIGN: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from Medline and Cinahl, from 1995 to May 2017. Two reviewers independently selected trials comparing educational intervention to usual care or an active control intervention. The methodological quality was assessed and data extraction was done independently. Primary outcome measures were pain intensity and interference. Secondary outcome measures were knowledge/barriers, medication adherence and self-efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty-six RCTs totaling 4735 patients met our inclusion criteria. Compared to the control group, 31% of the studies (including 19% of all patients) reported a significant difference in pain intensity in favor of the intervention group. Twelve studies measured pain interference and four (30%) found a significant improvement. With regard to secondary endpoints, significant differences in favor of the experimental arms were found for pain knowledge or barriers (15/22 studies; 68%), medication adherence (3/6 studies; 50%) and self-efficacy (1/2 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-based pain educational programs may result in improvements of relevant patient-reported outcomes. However, the interventions are heterogeneous and improvement of pain was only seen in less than one third of the studies and in less than 20% of all included patients.

Web-Based Tailored Psychoeducation for Breast Cancer Patients at the Onset of the Survivorship Phase: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

CONTEXT: Many breast cancer patients have unmet informational and psychosocial needs after treatment completion. A psychoeducational intervention may be well suited to support these patients. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this multicenter randomized controlled trial was to examine the effectiveness of a web-based tailored psychoeducational program (ENCOURAGE) for breast cancer patients, which aims to empower patients to take control over prevailing problems. METHODS: Female breast cancer patients from two hospitals in The Netherlands who recently completed (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy were randomly assigned to standard care or 12-week access to the ENCOURAGE program providing fully automated information problem-solving strategies, resources, and services for reported problems. At six and 12 weeks, patients completed self-report questions on optimism and control over the future (primary outcome), feelings of being informed, and acceptance of the illness. At baseline and 12 weeks, distress and quality of life questionnaires were completed. RESULTS: About 138 patients were included. Almost all patients (67 of 69) visited ENCOURAGE as requested. No differences between the control and intervention group were observed for primary and secondary outcomes. An unplanned subgroup analysis showed that in clinically distressed patients (N = 57 at baseline; 41%), use of the ENCOURAGE program increased optimism and control over the future at 12 weeks more than in patients in the control group (Cohen's d = 0.65). CONCLUSION: Although the effectiveness was not demonstrated, a subgroup of women treated for breast cancer can probably be supported by the program. The results of the present study are a starting point for further development and use of the program.

Dexamethasone for the prevention of a pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases: a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy has a good effect in palliation of painful bone metastases, with a pain response rate of more than 60%. However, shortly after treatment, in approximately 40% of patients a temporary pain flare occurs, which is defined as a two-point increase of the worst pain score on an 11-point rating scale compared to baseline, without a decrease in analgesic intake, or a 25% increase in analgesic intake without a decrease in worst pain score, compared to baseline. A pain flare has a negative impact on daily functioning and mood of patients. It is thought to be caused by periostial edema after radiotherapy. Dexamethasone might diminish this edema and thereby reduce the incidence of pain flare. Two non-randomized studies suggest that dexamethasone reduces the incidence of a pain flare by 50%. The aim of this trial is to study the effectiveness of dexamethasone to prevent a pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and to determine the optimal dose schedule. METHODS AND DESIGN: This study is a three-armed, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. We aim to include 411 patients with uncomplicated painful bone metastases from any type of primary solid tumor who receive short schedule radiotherapy (all conventional treatment schedules from one to six fractions). Arm 1 consists of daily placebo for four days, arm 2 starts with 8 mg dexamethasone before the (first) radiotherapy and three days placebo thereafter. Arm 3 consists of four days 8 mg dexamethasone. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of a pain flare. Secondary endpoints are pain, quality of life and side-effects of dexamethasone versus placebo. Patients complete a questionnaire (Brief Pain Inventory with two added questions about side-effects of medication, the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and QLQ-BM22 for quality of life) at baseline, daily for two weeks and lastly at four weeks. DISCUSSION: This study will show whether dexamethasone is effective in preventing a pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and, if so, to determine the optimal dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01669499.

How nurses assess breakthrough cancer pain, and the impact of this pain on patients' daily lives--results of a European survey.

PURPOSE: To increase our knowledge of how nurses assess breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP); and whether they find it difficult to distinguish BTCP from background pain; how they estimate the impact of BTCP on patients' daily lives, and the factors that nurses consider to induce BTCP. Variations in their use of assessment tools and their ability to distinguish between different types of pain were also examined in terms of the number of years of oncology nursing experience and the practice in different countries. METHODS: In total, 1241 nurses (90% female) who care for patients with cancer, from 12 European countries, completed a survey questionnaire. KEY RESULTS: Half the sample had >9 years of experience in oncology nursing. Although 39% had no pain assessment tool to help them distinguish between types of pain, 95% of those who used a tool found it useful. Furthermore, 37% reported that they had problems distinguishing background pain from BTCP. Movement was identified as the factor that most commonly exacerbated BTCP across all countries. The nurses reported that BTCP greatly interfered with patients' everyday activities, and they rated the patients' enjoyment of life as most strongly affected. The use of tools and the ability to distinguish between different pains varied between European countries and with years of experience in oncology nursing. CONCLUSIONS: The nurses reported that BTCP greatly interfered with patients' lives, and many nurses had problems distinguishing between background pain and BTCP. Nurses require more knowledge about BTCP management, and guidelines should be developed for clinical use.

A European survey of oncology nurse breakthrough cancer pain practices.

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH: Breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) is a prevalent type of pain in which the nurse can play an important role in improving patients' pain symptoms and overall well-being. Nurses' experience with BTCP (number of patients, and estimates of severity and frequency), the treatment of BTCP (pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments normally used), ratings of the importance of treatment factors, and reasons given for not advising patients to take strong painkillers are presented in the present paper. METHODS AND SAMPLE: Nurses from 12 European countries, who cared for patients with cancer, took part in a survey. In total 1618 nurses were recruited and 1241 completed the survey questionnaire. KEY RESULTS: Almost 90% of the nurses were female, and 50.4% had >9 years of experience in oncology nursing. The majority of the nurses (47%) said that a patient typically suffered from BTCP 2-3 times a day, and the severity of the pain for the patients was described as severe by 75.5%. In all, 38.4% of the nurses were unaware that medications specifically intended for treatment of BTCP exist, and 57% reported that oral opioids were normally prescribed for BTCP at their workplace. While 38% said they did not use nonpharmacological treatments for BTCP, the most common treatment approach was positional change (used by 76.6%). The treatment varied between the European countries. CONCLUSION: Patients do not receive the appropriate medical treatment for their BTCP. Nurses need better training about BTCP in general, and BTCP assessment and management specifically.