Evaluating clinical pharmacists' involvement in postoperative acute pain services: a multicenter survey in Guangdong Province, China.

Objective: Postoperative pain management is an important part of surgical pharmacy. Postoperative acute pain services in China are in their initial stages. This survey aimed to investigate the attitudes, involvement, and knowledge of clinical pharmacists in China regarding postoperative acute pain services. The results can provide valuable information to guide clinical pharmacists in developing targeted strategies to improve their postoperative acute pain service capabilities. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to the pharmacy departments of 133 grade A tertiary hospitals in Guangdong province, and the responses were collected electronically. Results: 123 completed questionnaires were collected from clinical pharmacists. Although 95.93% of clinical pharmacists believed they should participate in postoperative pain services, only 62.6% reported substantial involvement. Overall satisfaction with the postoperative pain service was 93.5%. Understanding of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid analgesics by clinical pharmacists was comparable (p > 0.05). Furthermore, 98.37% of clinical pharmacists desired systematic learning in postoperative pain management, and 40.65% expressed a strong need. Conclusion: Clinical pharmacists in China demonstrate a positive attitude toward participating in postoperative acute pain services. However, the actual level of involvement was concerning, and the lack of systematic training and well-established work protocols may be contributing factors. Efforts should be made to establish comprehensive and standardized processes and work protocols for postoperative acute pain services and provide systematic and hierarchical professional training to enhance clinical pharmacists' capabilities in postoperative acute pain services.

Virtual transitional pain service delivered via telehealth is effective in preventing new and persistent opioid use amongst post-surgical spine patients.

Opioid dependence is a national crisis, with 30 million patients annually at risk of becoming persistent opioid users after receiving opioids for post-surgical pain management. Translational Pain Services (TPS) demonstrate effectiveness for behavioral health improvements but its effectiveness in preventing persistent opioid use is less established, especially amongst opioid exposed patients. Prohibitive costs and accessibility challenges have hindered TPS program adoption. To address these limitations, we designed and implemented a remote telehealth TPS protocol focusing on preventing continued opioid use while improving behavioral health. Licensed therapists trained in the opioid-tapering CBT protocol delivered sessions reimbursed through standard payer reimbursement. Our prospective study evaluated the protocol's effectiveness on preventing persistent opioid use and behavioral health outcomes amongst both opioid naïve and exposed patients. In an opioid-naive patient cohort (n=67), 100% completely tapered off opioids, while in an opioid-exposed cohort (n =19) 52% completely tapered off opioids, demonstrating promising results. In both cohorts, we observed significant improvements in behavioral health scores, including pain. This opioid-tapering digital TPS is effective, adoptable, and incurs no out-of-pocket cost for healthcare systems. We provide the opioid-tapering CBT protocol in the supplement to facilitate adoption. Trial Registration Impact of Daily, Digital and Behavioral Tele-health Tapering Program for Perioperative Surgical Patients Exposed to Opioids and Benzodiazepines registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04787692. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04787692?term=NCT04787692&draw=2&rank=1.

Cultural Framing and the Impact On Acute Pain and Pain Services.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Optimal treatment requires a thorough understanding of all factors contributing to pain in the individual patient. In this review, we investigate the influence of cultural frameworks on pain experience and management. RECENT FINDINGS: The loosely defined concept of culture in pain management integrates a predisposing set of diverse biological, psychological and social characteristics shared within a group. Cultural and ethnic background strongly influence the perception, manifestation, and management of pain. In addition, cultural, racial and ethnic differences continue to play a major role in the disparate treatment of acute pain. A holistic and culturally sensitive approach is likely to improve pain management outcomes, will better cover the needs of diverse patient populations and help reduce stigma and health disparities. Mainstays include awareness, self-awareness, appropriate communication, and training.

Abdominal Wall Block Decreases Intraoperative Opioid Con-Sumption by Surgical Pleth Index-Guided Remifentanil Administration in Single-Port Laparoscopic Herniorrhaphy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Abdominal wall blocks (AWBs) can reduce pain during surgery and lessen opioid demand. Since it is difficult to know the exact level of intraoperative pain, it is not known how much the opioid dose should be reduced. In this study, using the surgical pleth index (SPI), which indicates pain index from sympathetic fibers, the amount of remifentanil consumption was investigated. We conducted single-port laparoscopic hernia repair in 64 patients, as follows: the regional block group (R group) was treated with AWB, while the control group (C group) was only subjected to general anesthesia. In both groups, the remifentanil concentration was adjusted to maintain the SPI score between 30 and 40 during surgery. The primary parameter was the amount of remifentanil. A total of 52 patients completed the study (24 in the R group, 28 in the C group). The remifentanil dose during surgery was decreased in the R group (29 ± 21 vs. 56 ± 36 ng/kg/min; p = 0.002). Visual analogue scale score and additional administrated analgesics were also low in the R group. As such, AWB can reduce the remifentanil dose while maintaining the same pain level.

The core minimum dataset for measuring pain outcomes in pain services across Scotland. Developing and testing a brief multi-dimensional questionnaire.

Background: There is currently no agreed minimum dataset to inform specialist chronic pain service provision. We aimed to develop a Core Minimum Dataset (CMD) for pain services in Scotland and perform preliminary analysis to evaluate its psychometric properties in adults with chronic pain. Methods: The questionnaire was developed following a review of existing relevant data collection instruments and national consultation. The CMD questionnaire was completed alongside a routine pre-clinic questionnaire by patients attending two pain services over 3 months. Concurrent validity was tested by comparing scores between the CMD and pre-existing questionnaires. Reliability was assessed by test-retest and discriminative validity via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: The final CMD questionnaire consisted of five questions on four domains: pain severity (Chronic Pain Grade [CPG] Q1); pain interference (CPG Q5); emotional impact (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 [PHQ-2], two questions); and quality of life (Short Form Health Survey-36 [SF-36] Q1). 530 patients completed the questionnaire. Strong correlation was found with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (rs = 0.753, p < 0.001). Moderate correlations were found with the Brief Pain Inventory for pain interference (rs = 0.585, p < 0.001) and pain severity (rs = 0.644, p < 0.001). Moderate to good reliability was demonstrated (Intra-class Correlation Coefficient = 0.572-0.845). All items indicated good discrimination for relevant health states. Conclusions: The findings represent initial steps towards developing an accurate questionnaire that is feasible for assessing chronic pain in adults attending specialist pain clinics and measuring service improvements in Scotland. Further validation testing, in clinical settings, is now required.

Quantifying the impact of COVID-19 on chronic pain services in the Republic of Ireland.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, most medical services were shut down and resources were redistributed. Closures included pain management departments where many staff were redeployed. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on chronic pain services in the Republic of Ireland. METHODS: An online survey was sent to pain consultants working in public hospitals in the Republic of Ireland between the 22nd and 28th September 2020. RESULTS: We received responses from 18 consultants from all 15 public hospitals in the Republic of Ireland with chronic pain services. Procedural volume during lockdown fell to 26% of pre-COVID levels. This had recovered somewhat by the time of the survey to 71%. Similarly, in-person outpatient clinic volume fell to 10% of per-COVID numbers and recovered to 50%. On average, 39% of public hospital activity was made up for by the availability of private hospitals. This varied significantly across the country. The use of telemedicine increased significantly during the pandemic. Before COVID, on average, 13% of outpatient clinic volume was composed of telephone or video consultations. This increased to 46% at the time of the survey. CONCLUSION: This survey of consultant pain physicians in the Republic of Ireland has revealed how chronic pain services have been affected during the pandemic and how they have evolved.

Attitudes, Aptitudes, Barriers and Knowledge of Pain Physicians towards Palliative Care Practice - A National Survey, India.

OBJECTIVES: The bio-psycho-socio-spiritual model is a common management approach in palliative care (PC) and chronic pain medicine (CPM), adopted by PC Physicians and Pain Physicians (PPs), respectively. There is a dearth of services and personnel of PC in India. As PPs are familiar with pain management and the bio-psycho-socio-spiritual model, we hypothesised that they would be willing to incorporate PC in their practice and therefore, sought to understand their attitudes/aptitudes/barriers/knowledge towards it. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We did a cross-sectional cohort study through a national survey of Indian PPs. The ten- item validated, survey questionnaire was mailed to 1300 PPs having E mail and registered with Indian Society for Study of Pain. RESULTS: We received responses from 6.6% of the PPs. About 10.39% did not want to practice PC; the rest were either practicing or wanted to, or were unable to. 81.8% had <10 years CPM experience while the rest had 10-15 years. About 53.3% PPs had <10 years' experience in PC; 10.4% had > 10 years and the rest had not practiced. About 70% were motivated by human suffering or had "personal reasons." About 40.26% had no barriers; the rest cited stress or lack of infrastructure/knowledge/skills/time/financial compensation. The majority chose institutional courses for training and the popular choice of duration of the course was 3 months. The opinion on financial viability/non-viability of PC was equally divided among the respondents. About 62.3% had "knowledge" but half of them lacked "skills;" 27.6% lacked both; the rest had no inclination towards PC. About a third felt multi-disciplinary care was feasible while half felt that it was partially feasible. CONCLUSION: Policy-makers, at regional to global levels are strategizing options for popularizing PC since it supports the dualistic model of cure and care, most essential for both, chronic-debilitating or life-limiting illnesses. The poor response to our survey was a major limiting factor. However, among the respondents, the majority showed both aptitude and a favourable attitude for PC practice. The inability to identify major barriers for not choosing PC did not support our hypothesis. However, we feel that PPs are a cohort who can be motivated/ encouraged to take up some form of brief, comprehensive courses in PC so that they can be conversant with the specific knowledge and skills needed to practice the multi-dimensional aspects of PC in their own settings.

Influence of interpretation of pain scores on patients' perception of pain: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Assessment of pain using pain scales is essential. In the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), patients are asked to score their pain intensity on a scale from 0 to 10 (10- worst pain). This requires some abstract thinking by the patient, also the pain scores (PS) may not essentially communicate the patients' need for more analgesia. We planned a study to evaluate the change in patients' self-assessed PS after understanding clinical interpretation of the NRS. METHODS: This prospective study was registered after approval from our hospital ethics board. Sample size estimated for the trial was 360 patients. All postoperative patients were recruited after informed consent. Patients having prolonged stay in Intensive Care Unit (more than 48 h), or those who underwent emergency surgeries were excluded. During Acute Pain Service (APS) rounds, patients were asked to rate their PS on the NRS. This was followed by a briefing about the clinical interpretation of the scale, and the patients were asked to re score their pain using the same scale. The change in pain severity was compared using Chi-square test. RESULTS: Following explanation, a change in severity was seen for PS at rest [X 2 (9, N- 360) = 441, P < 0.001] and at movement [X2 (9, N- 360) = 508, P < 0.001]. Overall, a change in PS severity was seen in 162 patients (45%). A decrease and an increase in the severity of pain was seen in 119 and 41 patients respectively. CONCLUSION: Explaining the clinical interpretation of PS on a NRS does lead to a change in patients' self-assessed PS.

Chronic pain patient and anaesthesia.

Severe chronic pain is often devastating for the affected individuals causing substantial suffering, health impairment, and a very low quality of life, including significant negative consequences for the patient and for society. Patients with complex pain disorders are seen often in relation to anaesthesia. They deserve special attention and require long time hospitalization and multiple contacts with health-care providers after discharge from hospital. A wider adoption of best perioperative and intraoperative pain management practice is required. This paper reviews current knowledge of perioperative and intraoperative pain management and anaesthetic care of the chronic pain patient. The individual topics covered include the magnitude of the problem created by chronic pain, the management of the patients taking various types of opioids, tolerance and opioid induced hyperalgesia and the multidisciplinary approach to pain management. The preventive and preemptive strategies for reducing the opioid needs and chronic pain after surgery are reviewed. The last section includes the role of acute pain services and an example of the implementation of a transitional pain service with the various benefits it offers; for example, the decrease of the opioid dose after discharge from the hospital. Patients also receive the continuity of care, with not only pain relief but also improvements in physical functioning, quality of life and emotional stress.

The neglected role of distress in pain management: qualitative research on a gastrointestinal ward.

Background and aims Pain management for hospital inpatients remains suboptimal. Previously identified barriers to optimal pain management include staff communication difficulties, confusion around pain management roles and a lack of suitable resources for clinical staff. The emotional, relational and contextual complexities of gastrointestinal (GI) pain create particular challenges for frontline clinical staff attempting to implement a biopsychosocial approach to its management. The current study took place over 2 years, comprised an ethnographic and a feedback phase, and aimed to examine pain management processes with clinical staff in order to generate hypotheses and initiatives for improvement. This paper focuses on two overarching themes identified in the ethnographic phase of the study, centred on the neglected role of both staff and patient distress in GI pain management. Methods Grounded theory and thematic analysis methods were used as part of action research, which involves collaborative working with clinical staff. The study took place on a 60 bed GI ward in a university hospital in London. Participants were clinical staff who were either ward-based or involved in the care of particular patients. This latter group included doctors, nurses, psychologists and physiotherapists from the Acute and Complex Pain Teams. Qualitative data on pain management processes was gathered from staff interviews, consultation groups, and observations of patient-staff interactions. Recruitment was purposive and collaborative in that early participants suggested targets and staff groups for subsequent enquiry. Following the identification of initial ethnographic themes, further analysis and the use of existing literature led to the identification of two overarching pain management processes. As such the results are divided into three sections: (i) illustration of initial ethnographic themes, (ii) summary of relevant theory used, (iii) exploration of hypothesised overarching processes. Results Initially, two consultation groups, five nursing staff and five junior doctors, provided key issues that were included in subsequent interviews (n=18) and observations (n=5). Initial ethnographic themes were divided into challenges and resources, reflecting the emergent structure of interviews and observations. Drawing on attachment, psychodynamic and evolutionary theories, themes were then regrouped around two overarching processes, centred on the neglected role of distress in pain management. The first process elucidates the lack of recognition during pain assessment of the emotional impact of patient distress on staff decision-making and pain management practice. The second process demonstrates that, as a consequence of resultant staff distress, communication between staff groups was fraught and resources, such as expert team referral and pharmacotherapy, appeared to function, at times, to protect staff rather than to help patients. Interpersonal skills used by staff to relieve patient distress were largely outside systems for pain care. Conclusions Findings suggest that identified "barriers" to optimal pain management likely serve an important defensive function for staff and organisations. Implications Unless the impact of patient distress on staff is recognised and addressed within the system, these barriers will persist.

The changing face of acute pain services.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Acute Pain Services have been implemented initially to treat inadequate postoperative pain. This study was undertaken to prospectively review the current challenges of the APS team in an academic hospital assessing the effects of its activity on both surgical and medical pain intensity. It also define the characteristics of the patients and the risk factors influencing the multiple visits from the APS team. METHOD: This prospective cohort study was conducted at Uppsala University Hospital (a Swedish tertiary and quaternary care hospital) during one year. All the patients referred to the APS team were enrolled. A standardized data collection template of demographic data, medical history, pain diagnosis, associated diseases, duration of treatment, number of visits by the APS team and type of treatment was employed. The primary outcomes were pain scores before, after treatment and the number of follow-ups. The patients were visited by APS at regular intervals and divided by the number of visits by APS team into several groups: group 1 (one visit and up to 2 follow ups); group 2 (3 to 4 follow-ups); group 3 (5 to 9 follow-ups); group 4 (10 to 19 follow-ups); group 5 (>20 followups). The difference between groups were analyzed with ordinal logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Patients (n=730) (mean age 56±4, female 58%, men 42%) were distributed by service to medical (41%) and surgical (58%). Of these, 48% of patients reported a pain score of moderate to severe pain and 27% reported severe pain on the first assessment. On the last examination before discharge, they reported 25-30% less pain (P=0.002). The median NRS (numerical rating scores) decreased significantly from 9.6 (95% confidence interval, 8.7-9.9) to 6.3 (6.1-7.4) for the severe pain (P<0.0001), from 3.8 (3.2-4.3) to 2.4 (1.8-2.9) for the moderate pain. The odds ratio for frequent follow-ups of the patients between 18 and 85 years (n=609) was 2.33 (95% CI: 1.35-4.02) if the patient had a history of chronic neuropathic pain, 1.80(1.25-2.60) in case the patient had a history of chronic nociceptive pain, 2.06(1.30-3.26) if he had mental diseases, and 3.35(2.21-5.08) if he had opioid dependency at the time of consultation from APS. Strong predictors of frequent visits included female gender (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Beside the benefits of APS in reducing pain intensity, this study demonstrates that the focus of APS has been shifted from the traditional treatment of acute surgical pain to the clinical challenges of treating hospitalized patients with a high comorbidity of psychiatric diseases, opioid dependency and chronic pain. IMPLICATIONS: The concept of an APS will ultimately be redefined according to the new clinical variables. In the light of the increasing number of patients with complex pain states and chronic pain, opioid dependency and psychiatric comorbidities it is mandatory that the interdisciplinary APS team should include other specialties besides the "classical interdisciplinary APS team", as psychiatry, psychology, rehabilitation and physiotherapy with experience in treating chronic pain patients.

ASSIST - Patient satisfaction survey in postoperative pain management from Indian subcontinent.

INTRODUCTION: To compare pain scores at rest and ambulation and to assess patient satisfaction between the different modalities of pain management at different time points after surgery. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: The ASSIST (Patient Satisfaction Survey: Pain Management) was an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter survey conducted among 1046 postoperative patients from India. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pain scores, patient's and caregiver's satisfaction toward postoperative pain treatment, and overall pain management at the hospital were captured at three different time points through a specially designed questionnaire. The survey assessed if the presence of acute pain services (APSs) leads to better pain scores and patient satisfaction scores. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: One-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the statistical significance between different modalities of pain management, and paired t-test was used to compare pain and patient satisfaction scores between the APS and non-APS groups. RESULTS: The results indicated that about 88.4% of patients reported postoperative pain during the first 24 h after surgery. The mean pain score at rest on a scale of 1-10 was 2.3 ± 1.8 during the first 24 h after surgery and 1.1 ± 1.5 at 72 h; the patient satisfaction was 7.9/10. Significant pain relief from all pain treatment was reported by patients in the non-APS group (81.6%) compared with those in the APS (77.8%) group (P < 0.0016). CONCLUSION: This investigator-initiated survey from the Indian subcontinent demonstrates that current standards of care in postoperative pain management remain suboptimal and that APS service, wherever it exists, is yet to reach its full potential.

First steps toward understanding the variability in acute pain service provision and the quality of pain relief in everyday practice across the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Pain management for patients in hospital is a major problem. There is significant variation in care provision. Evidence is needed about the ways in which acute pain services are organized in order to understand whether these are linked to important differences in patient outcomes. The National Inpatient Pain Study group is a voluntary collaborative venture of inpatient pain specialists in the United Kingdom who are working toward establishing a national prospective database of service provision and activity. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article are (1) to describe current pain service provision and activity (2) to define and monitor the quality and side effects of the primary analgesic techniques, such as central neuraxial block or systemic analgesia, and identify variations in practice. METHODS: Phase 1: Surveys were conducted in two phases during 2010-2011. Information about the organization of services was collected from 121 centers via a live Website. Phase 2: The pilot clinical dataset was collected from 13 hospitals in 2011. RESULTS: Results indicated that staffing varied widely from one to nine nurses per hospital site. Twelve percent of hospitals did not routinely collect data. The main workload was orthopedic and general surgery based on data from 13 hospitals and 29,080 patients in 2011. Thirty-seven percent of patients reported a pain score of moderate to severe pain on the first assessment by the specialist pain team, and 21% reported severe pain. Nausea and vomiting was the most frequent adverse event reported. Sixty-nine major adverse events were logged, of which 64 documented respiratory depression (N = 29,080, 0.22%). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective longitudinal data has the potential to improve our understanding of variation in process and outcome measures and establish future research priorities.

Characteristics of pain in hospitalized medical patients, surgical patients, and outpatients attending a pain management centre.

BACKGROUND: The characteristics and psychological impact of pain suffered by medical inpatients has been relatively under-investigated. The aim of this study was to compare the pain experience of medical, surgical inpatients, and patients attending a pain management centre. Some aspects of the quality of pain scoring and prescribing were also audited. METHODS: Medical inpatients with significant pain (moderate or severe pain on a verbal rating scale) were assessed using a battery of psychometric questionnaires. Comparator samples of surgical inpatients and patients attending the pain management centre were recruited. RESULTS: The prevalence of significant pain did not differ between the medical group (n=37) and the surgical group (n=38) (16.7% and 19.9%). Chronic pain was common in the medical group (54%) and the surgical group (50%). There were no differences in psychometric variables between the medical and surgical groups. Clinically significant scores for anxiety and depression (HADS ≥11) were common in all groups (30-38%). There was less concordance between patient-reported pain scores and nurse-recorded pain scores in the medical group than the surgical group and analgesic prescribing differed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of pain in the medical and surgical groups were similar, with high levels of anxiety and depression. The pain management group differed from the inpatient groups, with higher levels of psychopathology and poorer coping. These findings provide some insight into the complex nature of pain in hospital inpatients, and may inform where limited resources should be utilized to provide greatest patient benefit.