RESUMEN
Up to 50% of cancer patients and up to 90% of those in terminal stages experience pain associated with disease progression, poor quality of life, and social impact on caregivers. This study aimed to establish standards for the accreditation of oncological pain management in healthcare organizations. A mixed methods approach was used. First, a pragmatic literature review was conducted. Second, consensus between professionals and patients was reached using the Nominal Group and Delphi technique in a step that involved anesthesiologists, oncologists, family physicians, nurses, psychologists, patient representatives, and caregivers. Third, eight hospitals participated in a pilot assessment of the level of fulfillment of each standard. A total of 37 standards were extracted. The Nominal Group produced additional standards, of which 60 were included in Questionnaire 0 that was used in the Delphi Technique. Two Delphi voting rounds were performed to reach a high level of consensus, and involved 64 and 62 participants with response rates of 90% and 87%, respectively. Finally, 39 standards for the management of cancer pain were agreed upon. In the self-evaluation, the average range of compliance was between 56.4% and 100%. The consensus standards of the ACDON Project might improve the monitoring of cancer pain management. These standards satisfied the demands of professionals and patients and could be used for the accreditation of approaches in cancer pain management.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess the value of the concept of mixed pain by investigating its acceptance and interpretation by health care professionals and the differential characteristics in patients with mixed pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 5024 patients with pain from 551 sites in Primary Care and Orthopedics settings were analyzed in this cross-sectional study. Pain characteristics, other factors influencing pain, health care-related data and health-related quality of life were summarized and compared among 3 groups of patients according to the type of pain (nociceptive, neuropathic, or mixed), as assigned by the investigators after considering the pathophysiological mechanisms involved. RESULTS: Pain was of mixed pathophysiology in most patients (59.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 59.2%-59.5%), followed by nociceptive (31.8%; 95% CI, 31.6%-32.0%) and neuropathic pathophysiology (8.9%; 95% CI, 8.8%-9.1%). Patients with mixed pain had pain in >1 site more frequently than the other groups. Spinal conditions was the attributed cause of pain in >80% of patients with mixed pain, whereas nonspinal osteoarthritis represented almost a third. Patients with mixed pain showed a greater clinical complexity than the remaining patients, as they reflected: more comorbidities, adverse psycho-social factors, health care resource utilization, undertreatment, and perceived difficulties in patient management, but less perceived effectiveness of treatments and a lower health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: An independent category in the pathophysiological classification of pain is justified based on the differential characteristics of patients with mixed pain, although conceptualization of mixed pain should be improved. Increasing referrals to other specialists or implementing chronic pain management programs would seem advisable. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mixed pain showed more clinical complexity than patients with other types of pain. The consideration of mixed pain as an independent pathophysiological category may be justifiable on empirical clinical grounds.