[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.

[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.

[Is interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy threatened? : Increasing controversy on the necessity for inpatient treatment]. / Ist die interdisziplinäre multimodale Schmerztherapie in Gefahr? : Zunehmende Kontroversen zur Notwendigkeit der stationären Behandlung.

Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMST) is recognized as a scientifically founded form of therapy for inpatient treatment of chronic pain conditions. The indications are assessed by private practitioners and must be confirmed by physicians at the inpatient institution. The health insurance companies are obliged to remunerate this treatment but are allowed to test the conditions in individual cases. Recently, reports from members of the German Pain Society on a drastic increase in testing and rejection quotas have become more frequent. Therefore, this article discusses the legal foundations of the treatment of patients with chronic pain in the inpatient sector. Hard criteria for treatment in a certain sector could not be established. A decision in individual cases will depend on the complexity of the disease in the individual patient. A treatment in hospital is principally only necessary when the treatment corresponds to the generally recognized state of medical knowledge and treatment options in daycase units have not been successful. Important guidance can be found in the treatment guidelines of the medical specialist societies. The transfer to a more intensive treatment sector must be made dependent on the severity and complexity of the symptoms and the insufficient effectiveness of the treatment in the previous sector. Simple ICD-10 diagnoses are not suitable as decision-making criteria and therefore, also not as testing criteria for the indications for inpatient treatment. Decompensated and acutely exacerbated chronic pain conditions must as a rule be treated in hospital, also due to the mental component of the pain disease.

[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.

[Cross-sectoral interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy : Recommendations on structural and process parameters of the ad hoc commission "Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Therapy" of the German Pain Society (Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft e.  V.)]. / Sektorenübergreifende interdisziplinäre multimodale Schmerztherapie : Empfehlungen zu Struktur- und Prozessparametern der Ad-hoc-Kommission "Interdisziplinäre Multimodale Schmerztherapie" der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft e. V.

Based on the fundamental concept of the biopsychosocial model, interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy (IMPT) has developed to one of the most important components in the treatment of patients suffering from chronic pain. The process criteria for IMPT in Germany are described in the German OPS catalogue and IMPT is mainly offered as an inpatient treatment only. This article updates some of the fundamental criteria for IMPT for adult inpatient treatment and the task force defines basic structural and process criteria for the implementation of IMPT for outpatients.

[Implementation of interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy according to OPS 8­918 : Recommendations of the ad hoc commission for interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy of the German Pain Association]. / Umsetzung der interdisziplinären multimodalen Schmerztherapie nach OPS 8­918 : Empfehlungen der Ad-hoc-Kommission "Interdiziplinäre multimodale Schmerztherapie" der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft.

With the implementation of the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) reimbursement system in hospitals, interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy was incorporated into the associated catalogue of procedures (OPS 8­918). Yet, the presented criteria describing the procedure of interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy are neither precise nor unambiguous. This has led to discrepancies in the interpretation regarding the handling of the procedure-making it difficult for medical services of health insurance companies to evaluate the accordance between the delivered therapy and the required criteria. Since the number of pain units has increased in recent years, the number of examinations by the medical service of health insurance companies has increased. This article, published by the ad hoc commission for interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy of the German Pain Association, provides specific recommendations for correct implementation of interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy in routine care. The aim is to achieve a maximum level of accordance between health care providers and the requirements of the medical examiners from health insurance companies. More extensive criteria regarding interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment in an in-patient setting, especially for patients with chronic and complex pain, are obviously needed. Thus, the authors further discuss specific aspects towards further development of the OPS-code. However, the application of the OPS-code still leaves room regarding treatment intensity and process quality. Therefore, the delivery of pain management in sufficient quantity and quality still remains the responsibility of each health care provider.

[Chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors (F45.41) : Validation criteria on operationalization of the ICD-10-GM diagnosis]. / Chronische Schmerzstörung mit somatischen und psychischen Faktoren (F45.41) : Prüfkriterien zur Operationalisierung der ICD-10-GM-Diagnose.

In 2009 the diagnosis chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors (F45.41) was integrated into the German version of the International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10-GM). In 2010 Paul Nilges and Winfried Rief published operationalization criteria for this diagnosis. In the present publication the ad hoc commission on multimodal interdisciplinary pain therapy of the German Pain Society now presents a formula for a clear validation of these operationalization criteria of the ICD code F45.41.

[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.

[Structure of pain management facilities in Germany : Classification of medical and psychological pain treatment services-Consensus of the Joint Commission of the Professional Societies and Organizations for Quality in Pain Medicine]. / Struktur der schmerzmedizinischen Versorgung in Deutschland : Klassifikation schmerzmedizinischer Einrichtungen - Konsens der Gemeinsamen Kommission der Fachgesellschaften und Verbände für Qualität in der Schmerzmedizin.

On behalf of the Medical/Psychological Pain Associations, Pain Patients Alliance and the Professional Association of Pain Physicians and Psychologists, the Joint Commission of Professional Societies and Organizations for Quality in Pain Medicine, working in close collaboration with the respective presidents, has developed verifiable structural and process-related criteria for the classification of medical and psychological pain treatment facilities in Germany. Based on the established system of graded care in Germany and on existing qualifications, these criteria also argue for the introduction of a basic qualification in pain medicine. In addition to the first-ever comprehensive description of psychological pain facilities, the criteria presented can be used to classify five different levels of pain facilities, from basic pain management facilities, to specialized institutions, to the Centre for Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine. The recommendations offer binding and verifiable criteria for quality assurance in pain medicine and improved pain treatment.

Construct and predictive validity of the German Örebro questionnaire short form for psychosocial risk factor screening of patients with low back pain.

PURPOSE: Recognizing patients at risk of developing chronic low back pain is essential for targeted interventions. One of the best researched screening instruments for this purpose is the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire (ÖMSPQ). This work addresses psychometric properties of the German ÖMSPQ short form and its construct and prognostic validity. METHODS: Analyses are based on a cluster-randomized trial assessing a risk tailored intervention for patients consulting for low back pain in 35 general practices. A total of 360 patients consulting for acute and sub-acute back pain, aged 20-60 years, were included. All patients received a 10-item German short version of the ÖMSPQ, and other generic instruments (Graded Chronic Pain Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-Depression, Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire). The construct validity was assessed based on the factorial structure of the items and correlations with generic instruments. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were calculated as measures of prognostic validity. RESULTS: ÖMSPQ items belonging to the same subscale correlated highest among each other. The internal consistency of the ÖMSPQ items was 0.80 (Cronbach's α). The factorial structure corresponds with theoretic expectations. ÖMSPQ subscales on pain related disability, depression, and fear-avoidance beliefs correlated highest with their counterpart generic scales. The AUC for three ÖMSPQ-based prediction models ranged from 0.77 to 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support a satisfactory factorial and prognostic validity of the German short ÖMSPQ. The instrument may guide the provision of targeted interventions. Further research should link it to targeted treatments.

[Acute inpatient multimodal pain therapy and rehabilitation: Framework conditions, tasks and differentiated patient allocation]. / Akutstationäre multimodale Schmerztherapie und Rehabilitation: Rahmenbedingungen, Aufgaben und differenzierte Patientenzuweisung.

Multimodal pain treatment programs are widely accepted as the medical treatment standard in the management of patients with chronic pain syndromes. The concepts and treatment strategies are based on the biopsychosocial model of pain and programs for early restoration of function. Although this concept is primarily implemented in the curative field, i.e. in hospitals for the treatment of patients with chronic pain diseases, modified programs based on the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) can now also be found in rehabilitation clinics. Despite the assumed similarities, significant differences in, for example the aims of the therapy and relevant structural and process variables have to be kept in mind when allocating patients to a program as provided by a hospital or a rehabilitation clinic. The aim of this article is to present the framework structures of both treatment levels with respect to the implementation of multimodal pain therapy programs and to elucidate the differential diagnostic approach to the indications.

[Psychological approaches to pain in Germany. Review and outlook]. / Psychologie und Schmerz in Deutschland. Rückblick und Ausblick.

Pain perception is a complex experience that entails somatic and psychological factors. This is especially true for chronic pain where increasing chronicity leads to a growing significance of psychological factors such as learning and memory processes or cognitive evaluation at the expense of nociceptive processes. Hardly any other area of health-related research and health care has such an interdisciplinary organization of research, treatment, and education. Psychological pain research and psychological treatment of pain have become specializations in their own right. For the future of this research area, a differential analysis of the contribution of psychological factors to chronicity is important. For a mechanism-oriented treatment, the development of new treatment approaches and the analysis of specific subgroups for a better differential indication of treatments is needed.

[Multimodal pain therapy for treatment of chronic pain syndrome. Consensus paper of the ad hoc commission on multimodal interdisciplinary pain management of the German Pain Society on treatment contents]. / Multimodale Schmerztherapie für die Behandlung chronischer Schmerzsyndrome. Ein Konsensuspapier der Ad-hoc-Kommission Multimodale interdisziplinäre Schmerztherapie der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft zu den Behandlungsinhalten.

Multimodal pain management is a comprehensive treatment of complex chronic pain syndromes. In addition to medical therapy various other specialized therapeutic interventions based on the biopsychosocial model of pain origin and chronic pain development, are added. During the last few years treatment centers for chronic pain have been established throughout Germany. Multimodal pain management has been included in the official catalogue of the recognized medical procedures for day clinic units as well as for inpatient pain management. In daily practice there is, however, still a lack of clarity and of consistency about the components that multimodal pain management should contain. This is the reason for the ad hoc commission on multimodal interdisciplinary pain management of the German Pain Society to propose the following position paper that has been worked out in a multilevel and interdisciplinary consensus process. The paper describes the mandatory treatment measures in the four core disciplines of multimodal pain management, pain medicine, psychotherapy, exercise therapy including physiotherapy and assistant medical professions including nurses.

[Comparison of two screening questionnaires for patients with low back pain. Collation of risk factors for chronification]. / Vergleich zweier Screening-Fragebogen für Patienten mit Rückenschmerzen. Erfassung von Risikofaktoren für eine Chronifizierung.

BACKGROUND: Screening for risk factors for chronic low back pain (LBP) (yellow flags) is recommended by clinical guidelines. Various questionnaires to assess yellow flags have been proposed. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic validity of two screening questionnaires. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study with 241 LBP patients from 9 general practitioners, 4 orthopedic surgeons and 2 pain clinics. We compared the Örebro musculoskeletal pain questionnaire (ÖMSPQ) and the Heidelberg short questionnaire (HKF-R10) which were completed by all patients at inclusion before the consultation. Primary outcomes were assessed after 3 months by mail. Clinical endpoints were pain intensity, disability and more than two follow-up consultations. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the HKF-R10 to predict the primary outcome ranged from 81 % to 88 %, while the specificity was much lower (37-47 %). The ÖMSPQ showed an opposite pattern with a low sensitivity ranging from 50 % to 58 % but a higher specificity (77-80 %). In patients initially classified as having chronic LBP (n = 81), using the questionnaires as a diagnostic tool, the sensitivity of both questionnaires increased but specificity decreased. Single items may perform better with regard to primary outcome than the sum scores. CONCLUSION: Both screening questionnaires for chronic LBP have insufficient diagnostic and prognostic validity for routine use in ambulatory care. Further studies are needed to improve diagnostic and prognostic validity and to elaborate criteria for a targeted use of screening questionnaires to guide therapeutic interventions.

[Requirements for the organization of pain therapy in hospitals: interdepartmental comparison for pain management from the employees' perspective]. / Anforderungen an die Organisation der Schmerztherapie im Krankenhaus : Abteilungsübergreifender Vergleich von Anforderungen an das Schmerzmanagement aus Mitarbeitersicht.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, the focus of pain management in hospitals was the organization and quality of control of postoperative pain, although there is a similar demand in nonsurgical departments. The aim of this study was to assess the employees' perspective on problems and corresponding solutions in pain management in a university hospital and to further clarify whether the implementation of concepts and tools of pain management across disciplines is feasible. METHODS: Physicians and nursing staff of all inpatient departments of the University Hospital Göttingen were asked about problems in pain management and the importance of various established instruments using a standardized questionnaire. Ratings were recorded on a numeric rating scale (0-10). The analysis was primarily descriptive, the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test were used when appropriate. RESULTS: In all, 149 medical and 501 nursing employees were included. The quality of pain management was perceived as better in surgical departments than in the conservative and pediatric departments. In all areas, the lack of an adequate order for baseline- and rescue-analgesic, and accordingly the nursing staff's limited ability to act was rated as problematic. In contrast to the conservative and pediatric departments, the predominant problem of surgical departments was the lack of availability of physicians on the ward. As a solution, the advice provided by pain consultation services was rated highly by the staff in all areas. The importance of implementation of standardized analgesic concepts was also supported equally in all areas. The evaluation of the quality of pain management was related to the employee's estimation of their ability to actively treat pain. Physicians rated problems in quality and organization lower compared to nursing stuff. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate that from the employee's perspective problems in pain management in surgical and nonsurgical departments are very similar. Transferring concepts and structures of surgical pain management, such as standardized concepts and advice and or care through pain services, would meet high levels of acceptance. The results also indicate that the nursing staff's ability to treat should be increased by the provision of adequate rescue-analgesics. To close deficits in the management of care, established concepts of pain management could be extended to all departments of a hospital. Similarities outweigh differences in the employee's assessment.