[Critical discussion of new data regarding prevalence of opioid use disorder in patients with chronic pain in Germany]. / Kritische Auseinandersetzung mit neuen Daten zur Prävalenz von Opioidgebrauchsstörungen bei Patienten mit chronischen Schmerzen in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: There is no opioid crisis in Germany. However, new studies involving patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) in Germany show an unexpectedly high prevalence of opioid use disorder according to DSM­5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Psychiatric Diseases). OBJECTIVES: Critical discussion of new study results on the prevalence of opioid use disorder in CNCP patients in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Selective literature search and multiprofessional classification of results by an expert panel (pain therapy, neurology, psychiatry, palliative medicine, general medicine and addiction therapy). RESULTS: The DSM­5 criteria for the diagnosis of "opioid use disorder" have limited applicability to patients with CNCP, but may raise awareness of problematic behavior. The diagnosis of opioid use disorder is not the same as the diagnosis of substance dependence according to ICD-10, as the DSM­5 diagnosis covers a much broader spectrum (mild, moderate, severe). Risk factors for opioid use disorder include younger age, depressive disorders, somatoform disorders, and high daily opioid doses. The interdisciplinary guideline on long-term opioid use for CNCP (LONTS) includes recommendations intended to reduce the risk for opioid use disorder. CONCLUSION: An adaptation of the DSM­5 diagnostic criteria of opioid use disorder to the specific situation of CNCP patients and a validation of these criteria could help to collect more accurate data on opioid use disorders of patients with chronic pain in Germany in the future. Prescribers should be sensitized to this problem without pathologizing or even stigmatizing patients. Further research is needed to classify this previously underestimated phenomenon.

[Characteristic values and test statistical goodness of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) in patients with chronic pain : An evaluation based on the KEDOQ pain dataset]. / Kennwerte und teststatistische Güte des Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) bei Patienten mit chronischem Schmerz : Eine Auswertung auf Basis des KEDOQ-Schmerz-Datensatzes.

The Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) was added to the German Pain Questionnaire (DSF) as a self-report measure of health-related quality of life in 2016, replacing the previously used SF-12, which required a license. Both measures have 12 items and include a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS). Evaluations with a larger sample on characteristic values and on the test-statistical goodness of the VR-12 in patients with chronic pain are so far missing. Data on the VR-12 and other procedures of the DSF were evaluated from 11,644 patients from 31 centers participating in KEDOQ pain. The patients filled out the DSF before starting a pain therapy treatment. Change sensitivity was determined for 565 patients for whom the VR-12 was available from a follow-up questionnaire of the DSF several months after the initial survey.The reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of the PCS was rtt = 0.78 and for the MCS rtt = 0.84. The MCS had significant relationships with the depression, anxiety and stress scales (r = -0.51 to r = -0.72), and the PCS correlated more highly with areas of pain-related impairment (r = -0.48 to r = -0.52). Patients with higher pain chronicity, those with higher pain severity, and those with evidence of high psychological distress described significantly lower health-related quality of life in PCS and MCS. The effect size (ES) of change in terms of improvement in health-related quality of life was ES = 0.33 in the MCS and ES = 0.51 in the PCS.The results are in agreement with the findings of the SF-36 and SF-12 in patient collectives with chronic pain. In summary, they show that the VR-12 is an adequate substitute for the SF-12 in the German pain questionnaire.

[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 management in departments of internal medicine : Results of a national survey on structures and processes of care]. / Schmerzmanagement in der Inneren Medizin : Ergebnisse einer bundesweiten Erhebung zu Struktur- und Prozessdaten.

BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES: Deficits in the quality of pain management in hospitals have been described for years. The aim of this study was to assess structures and processes of pain management in departments for internal medicine in German hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected using a standardized telephone interview (non-university hospital departments) on a randomized sample of hospitals (circa 1/3 of hospitals); all German departments of university hospitals were invited to participate and questioned separately using an online questionnaire (SurveyMonkey®). RESULTS: Data from 139 non-university departments (response rate: 21%) and 33 university hospital departments (only 21 questionnaires were fully answered, response rate 17 and 11%, respectively) were collected. Of 619 non-university hospital departments contacted, 441 explicitly refused to participate in the survey, most often on the grounds that there was no interest in pain management. Pain was regularly recorded as an independent parameter during the medical visit in 89% of the non-university hospital and 96% of the university hospital departments; written standardized treatment protocols for pain therapy were available in 57% of the non-university hospital departments (54% university hospital departments). In 76% of the non-university hospitals departments (100% university hospital departments), an acute pain service was also available for patients of internal medicine departments for co-treatment. Written cooperation agreements were less common (35% non-university hospital departments, 18% university hospital departments). CONCLUSION: The described implementation of pain management was satisfying in the participating departments. However, in consideration of the low participation and high rejection of participation due to explicit disinterest in the topic, the results should be critically assessed and presumably characterized by a significant positive bias.

[Safety and monitoring of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia : Clinical practice in German hospitals]. / Sicherheit und Monitoring der patientenkontrollierten intravenösen Analgesie : Anwendungspraxis in deutschen Krankenhäusern.

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) is a well-established technique in acute pain management and available in most German hospitals. Despite its widespread use, information on current clinical practice is limited. This investigation evaluated clinical practice and monitoring as well as PCIA-associated adverse events and critical incidents in German hospitals. METHODS: An invitation to participate in this online-survey was sent to 995 heads of anesthesiology departments belonging to the "German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine". RESULTS: Of the departments receiving the link, 244 took part (response rate 25%). PCIA was used in 193 of these hospitals (79%). All the following statements relate to the hospitals in which PCIA was used. Piritramide was the most frequently used opioid. In parallel with PCIA, additional nonopioid analgesics were used in 94% of the hospitals, and in 38%, additional slow-release oral opioids were used. Parenteral opioids were administered by the ward staff in 4% of the hospitals. In 75% of hospitals, there were standardized indications for PCIA therapy, with almost two thirds of respondents stating that PCIA was the technique of second choice if regional procedures were contraindicated or failed. In all, 76% of the hospitals had an acute pain service. Twenty-four percent of the hospitals regularly used PCIA in non-surgical patients. In pediatric patients, PCIA was used in 62 hospitals (32%). Only 31% of the hospitals reported the use of standardized protocols for the specific monitoring of patients' vital signs on general wards, exceeding general care. Of the department, 158 (82%) reported adverse events in connection with the use of PCIA within the six-month period preceding the survey (most frequently due to patients' noncompliance [52%], dislocated intravenous lines [41%], communication errors [16%], administration of additional analgesics [16%] and/ or sedatives [14%], problems with the pump [16%], programming errors [9%], incorrect opioid concentration in the reservoir [8%], non-observance of contraindications [7%], incorrect dosing [6%] and self-dosing by the patient [4%] or by third parties [3%], filling the reservoir with thewrong medication [2%]; and other problems [5%]). Only 35 of the hospitals (18%) reported no problems associated with PCIA therapy. Seventy-five of the 193 respondents (39%) stated that at least one critical incident had occurred in the context of the use of PCIA. This resulted in a total of 335 cases out of an estimate of 50.000 patients treated with PCIA. The respondents classified these as follows: I) 273 incidents requiring a prolonged stay in the recovery room, but without further complications, II) 58 requiring transfer to the intensive care unit, but without further complications, III) three resulting in permanent harm to the patient and IV) one resulting in the death of the patient. A comparison of the monitoring standards for PCIA showed that critical incidents were reported less frequently in hospitals with less intensive monitoring, and more frequently in hospitals with higher monitoring standards. CONCLUSION: PCIA is a frequently used analgesic technique in German hospitals. There were many differences in how PCIA therapy was applied and monitored on general wards. Adverse events occurred to a significant extent, with a considerable part of them, which might be preventable. Critical incidents were perceived more often when standards for monitoring on general wards were higher. Consented current recommendations regarding treatment and monitoring standards as well as the systematic recording of complications when using PCIA are pending.

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.

The effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative pain management compared to PCIA : A cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Standard protocols or algorithms are considered essential to ensure adequate analgesia. Germany has widely adopted postoperative protocols for pain management including oral opioids for rescue medication, but the effectiveness of such protocols has only been evaluated longitudinally in a before and after setting. The aim of this cohort analysis was to compare the effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative management of pain to the gold standard of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study compared cohorts of patients of two prospective observational studies undergoing elective total hip replacement. After surgery patients received piritramide to achieve a pain score of ≤3 on the numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10). A protocol was started consisting of oral long-acting oxycodone and ibuprofen (basic analgesia). Cohort 1 (C1, 126 patients) additionally received an oral opioid rescue medication (hydromorphone) when reporting pain >3 on the NRS. Cohort 2 (C2, 88 patients) was provided with an opioid by PCIA (piritramide) for opioid rescue medication. Primary endpoints were pain intensity at rest, during movement, and maximum pain intensity within the first 24 h postoperative. Secondary endpoints were opioid consumption, functional outcome and patient satisfaction with pain management. RESULTS: Pain during movement and maximum pain intensity were higher in C1 compared to C2: pain on movement median 1st-3rd quartile: 6 (3.75-8) vs. 5 (3-7), p = 0.023; maximum pain intensity: 7 (5-9) vs. 5 (3-8), p = 0.008. There were no differences in pain intensity at rest or between women and men in either group. The mean opioid consumption in all patients (combined PACU, baseline, and rescue medication; mean ± SD mg ME) was 126.6 ± 51.8 mg oral ME (median 120 (87.47-154.25) mg ME). Total opioid consumption was lower in C1 than C2 (117 ± 46 mg vs 140 ± 56 mg, p = 0.002) due to differences in rescue opioids (C1: 57 ± 37 mg ME, C2: 73 ± 43 mg ME, p = 0.006, Z = -2.730). Basic analgesia opioid use was comparable (C1: 54 ± 31 mg ME, C2: 60 ± 36 mg ME, p = 0.288, Z = -1.063). There were no differences in respect to the addition of non-opioids and reported quality of mobilization, sleep, frequency of nausea and vomiting, or general satisfaction with pain management. CONCLUSION: In this study PCIA provided a better reduction of pain intensity, when compared to a standardized protocol with oral opioid rescue medication. This effect was associated with increased opioid consumption. There were no differences in frequencies of opioid side effects. This study was a retrospective analysis of two cohorts of a major project. As with all retrospective studies, our analysis has several limitations to consider. Data can only represent the observation of clinical practice. It cannot reflect the quality of a statement of a randomized controlled trial. Observational studies do not permit conclusions on causal relationships.

[Pain therapy care in Germany-Do patients receiving day care differ from those receiving outpatient or inpatient care at the start of treatment? : A further evaluation based on the KEDOQ-pain data set]. / Schmerztherapeutische Versorgung in Deutschland ­ unterscheiden sich teilstationär versorgte Patienten von den ambulant oder stationär versorgten bei Behandlungsbeginn? : Eine weitere Auswertung auf Basis des KEDOQ-Schmerz-Datensatzes.

The direct comparison of day care pain patients with patients from other treatment sectors with respect to sociodemographic, pain-related and psychological characteristics has not yet been the subject of systematic analyses. The project core documentation and quality assurance in pain therapy (KEDOQ-pain) of the German Pain Society (Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft e.V.) makes this comparison possible. This second analysis of the available KEDOQ data was intended to show how patients receiving day care treatment can be characterized using the core data set and whether and to what extent they differ from patients receiving outpatient or inpatient treatment. This is a continuation of the first publication, which showed remarkably small differences between outpatients and inpatients but did not include day care patients.The KEDOQ-pain data from 25 centers with a total of 8953 patients were evaluated. Patients had completed the German pain questionnaire (DSF) between January 2012 and March 2017 and received day care (n = 1264), outpatient (n = 4082) or inpatient (n = 3607) pain therapy treatment. Sociodemographic, pain-related and psychometric data of the DSF reported by patients were evaluated as well as physician information on the pain chronification stage and pain localization. The evaluation was descriptive and compared groups using univariate and multivariate procedures.Day care treated patients were significantly younger, had a higher level of education, were more frequently employed, reported higher impairment values and showed a higher severity index according to von Korff than inpatients and outpatients treated for pain. In addition, they described a shorter pain duration as well as worse habitual well-being (Marburg questionnaire on habitual well-being, MFHW). These predictors explained roughly half of the variance in the prediction of the day care treatment setting. The comparison of outpatients and inpatients showed significant group differences for some variables; however, the effects were very small.The evaluations suggest that pain therapy day care facilities treat a special group of pain patients that significantly differ from patients in other treatment sectors. Cautious conclusions are drawn regarding the systematic allocation of patients to care appropriate to their treatment needs.

[Management of patients with chronic pain in acute and perioperative medicine : An interdisciplinary challenge]. / Management von Patienten mit chronischen Schmerzen in der Akut- und perioperativen Medizin : Eine interdisziplinäre Herausforderung.

Chronic pain is a frequent comorbidity of patients in hospitals and has an influence on the clinical course and the duration of hospitalization. There is a need to have a better understanding of chronic pain as a comorbidity and it should be considered to a greater extent in understanding diseases, in treatment concepts and hospital structures to ensure a resource-oriented and high-quality care. This begins on admission by identifying pre-existing pain and related risk factors with the medical history and taking these into account in the treatment regimen. A multimodal treatment approach that involves medicinal, educational, psychological and physiotherapeutic expertise is required in these patients. A unimodal approach in the treatment is not effective. A pain physician should be involved in the treatment team as early as possible. Furthermore, psychological joint supervision should be available for these patients as several studies have demonstrated positive perioperative effects of psychological approaches on the treatment in this patient group.

[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.

Relieving phantom limb pain with multimodal sensory-motor training.

OBJECTIVE: The causes for the disabling condition of phantom limb pain (PLP), affecting 85% of amputees, are so far unknown, with few effective treatments available. Sensory feedback based strategies to normalize the motor commands to control the phantom limb offer important targets for new effective treatments as the correlation between phantom limb motor control and sensory feedback from the motor intention has been identified as a possible mechanism for PLP development. APPROACH: Ten upper-limb amputees, suffering from chronic PLP, underwent 16 days of intensive training on phantom-limb movement control. Visual and tactile feedback, driven by muscular activity at the stump, was provided with the aim of reducing PLP intensity. MAIN RESULTS: A 32.1% reduction of PLP intensity was obtained at the follow-up (6 weeks after the end of the training, with an initial 21.6% reduction immediately at the end of the training) reaching clinical effectiveness for chronic pain reduction. Multimodal sensory-motor training on phantom-limb movements with visual and tactile feedback is a new method for PLP reduction. SIGNIFICANCE: The study results revealed a substantial reduction in phantom limb pain intensity, obtained with a new training protocol focused on improving phantom limb motor output using visual and tactile feedback from the stump muscular activity executed to move the phantom limb.

[Delegation of medical activities in acute pain therapy]. / Delegation ärztlicher Tätigkeiten in der Akutschmerztherapie.

Acute pain management is an interprofessional and interdisciplinary task and requires a good and trustful cooperation between stakeholders. Despite provisions in Germany according to which medical treatment can only be rendered by a formally qualified physician ("Arztvorbehalt"), a physician does not have to carry out every medical activity in person. Under certain conditions, some medical activities can be delegated to medical auxiliary personnel but they need to be (1) instructed, (2) supervised and (3) checked by the physician himself; however, medical history, diagnostic assessment and evaluation, indications, therapy planning (e.g. selection, dosage), therapeutic decisions (e. g. modification or termination of therapy) and obtaining informed consent cannot be delegated. With respect to drug therapy, monitoring of the therapy remains the personal responsibility of the physician, while the actual application of medication can be delegated. From a legal perspective, the current practice needs to be stressed about what is within the mandatory requirements and what is not when medical activities are delegated to non-medical staff. The use of standards of care improves treatment quality but like any medical treatment it must be based on the physician's individual assessment and indications for each patient and requires personal contact between physician and patient. Delegation on the ward and in acute pain therapy requires the authorization of the delegator to give instructions in the respective setting. The transfer of non-delegable duties to non-medical personnel is regarded as medical malpractice.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management - An overview of systematic reviews.

Medicinal cannabis has already entered mainstream medicine in some countries. This systematic review (SR) aimed at evaluating the efficacy, acceptability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. Qualitative systematic review of SRs of randomized controlled trials with cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. The Cochrane databases of SRs, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and PubMed were searched for SR published in the period January 2009 to January 2017. Assessment of the methodological quality of SR was performed by the AMSTAR checklist. Out of 748 papers identified, 10 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was high in four and moderate in six SRs. There were inconsistent findings of four SRs on the efficacy of cannabis-based medicines in neuropathic pain and of one SR for painful spasms in multiple sclerosis. There were consistent results that there was insufficient evidence of any cannabis-based medicine for pain management in patients with rheumatic diseases (three SRs) and in cancer pain (two SRs). Cannabis-based medicines undoubtedly enrich the possibilities of drug treatment of chronic pain conditions. It remains the responsibility of the health care community to continue to pursue rigorous study of cannabis-based medicines to provide evidence that meets the standard of 21st century clinical care. SIGNIFICANCE: We provide an overview of systematic reviews on the efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management. There are inconsistent findings of the efficacy of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain and painful spasms in multiple sclerosis. There are inconsistent results on tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for any chronic pain.