Thirty-five Years of Acute Pain Services: Where Do We Go From Here?

Acute pain services (APS) have developed over the past 35 years. Originally implemented solely to care for patients with regional catheters or patient-controlled analgesia after surgery, APS have become providers of care throughout the perioperative period, with some institutions even taking the additional step toward providing outpatient services for patients with acute pain. Models vary considerably in terms of tasks and responsibilities, staffing, education, protocols, quality, and financing. Many challenges face today's APS, including the increasing number of patients with preexisting chronic pain, intake of analgesics and opioids before surgery, substance-dependent patients needing special care, shorter hospital stays, early discharge of patients in need of further analgesic treatment, prevention and treatment of chronic postsurgical pain, minimization of adverse events, and side effects of treatment. However, many APS lack a clear-cut definition of their structures, tasks, and quality. Development of APS in the future will require us to face urgent questions, such as, "What are meaningful outcome variables?" and, "How do we define high quality?" It is obvious that focusing exclusively on pain scores does not reflect the complexity of pain and recovery. A broader approach is needed-a common concept of surgical and anesthesiological services within a hospital (eg, procedure-specific patient pathways as indicated by the programs "enhanced recovery after surgery" or the "perioperative surgical home"), with patient-reported outcome measures as one central quality criterion. Pain-related functional impairment, treatment-induced side effects, speed of mobilization, as well as return to normal function and everyday activities are key.

"My life is under control with these medications": an interpretative phenomenological analysis of managing chronic pain with opioids.

BACKGROUND: The use of opioids to relieve chronic pain has increased during the last decades, but experiences of chronic opioid therapy (COT) (> 90 days) point at risks and loss of beneficial effects. Still, some patients report benefits from opioid medication, such as being able to stay at work. Guidelines for opioid use in chronic pain do not consider the individual experience of COT, including benefits and risks, making the first person perspective an important scientific component to explore. The aim of this study was to investigate the lived experience of managing chronic pain with opioids in a sample who have severe chronic pain but are able to manage their pain sufficiently to remain at work. METHODS: We used a qualitative research design: interpretative phenomenological analysis. Ten individuals with chronic pain and opioid therapy were purposively sampled in Swedish tertiary care. RESULTS: Three super-ordinate themes emerged from the analyses: Without opioids, the pain becomes the boss; Opioids as a salvation and a curse, and Acknowledgement of the pain and acceptance of opioid therapy enables transition to a novel self. The participants used opioids to regain control over their pain, thus reclaiming their wanted life and self, and sense of control over one's life-world. Using opioids to manage pain was not unproblematic and some of the participants had experienced a downward spiral of escalating pain and uncontrollable opioid use, and stigmatisation. CONCLUSIONS: All participants emphasised the importance of control, regarding both pain and opioid use. To accomplish this, trust between participants and health care providers was essential for satisfactory treatment. Regardless of the potential sociocultural benefits of staying at work, participants had experiences of balancing positive and negative effects of opioid therapy, similar to what previous qualitative research has found. Measurable improvement of function and quality of life, may justify the long-term use of opioids in some cases. However, monitoring of adverse events should be mandatory. This requires close cooperation and a trusting relationship between the patients and their health care provider.

Headache service quality: the role of specialized headache centres within structured headache services, and suggested standards and criteria as centres of excellence.

In joint initiatives, the European Headache Federation and Lifting The Burden have described a model of structured headache services (with their basis in primary care), defined service quality in this context, and developed practical methods for its evaluation.Here, in a continuation of the service quality evaluation programme, we set out ten suggested role- and performance-defining standards for specialized headache centres operating as an integral component of these services. Verifiable criteria for evaluation accompany each standard. The purposes are five-fold: (i) to inspire and promote, or stimulate the establishment of, specialized headache centres as centres of excellence; (ii) to define the role of such centres within optimally structured and organized national headache services; (iii) to set out criteria by which such centres may be recognized as exemplary in their fulfilment of this role; (iv) to provide the basis for, and to initiate and motivate, collaboration and networking between such centres both nationally and internationally; (v) ultimately to improve the delivery and quality of health care for headache.

Morality in clinical space: treatment of youngsters with functional somatic symptoms in a Western clinical context.

This paper explores the moral implications of treatment of young people with functional somatic symptoms. Based on an ethnographic field study at a Danish pain clinic for youngsters (age 8 to 18), the paper seeks to unearth the cultural, moral values that clinical practice steers by and upholds, and the implications this has for the assessment and management of ill body-selves. Through an exposition of the general practice of the clinic and an investigation of two specific cases of youngsters, it is found that the assessment of symptoms and selves and the goals of treatment are informed by cultural ideals of 'the good self' and 'the good life' in which agency and work ethic - both pertaining to the notion of individual responsibility - figure as prevalent virtues. The study underpins the findings of other researchers who have found that ideals of individual autonomy and responsibility for own life and health permeate the Western health care system and the discourses of ill individuals. The contribution of this article is to portray in ethnographic detail how such a cultural ethics manifests in practice and what implications this have for the treatment of young people with functional symptoms at a specific location and in specific cases. The two cases illustrate that the underlying norms and values can give rise to very different moral assessments of symptoms and selves within the same diagnostic category.

Multimodal Treatment Options, Including Rotating to Buprenorphine, Within a Multidisciplinary Pain Clinic for Patients on Risky Opioid Regimens: A Quality Improvement Study.

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate a novel clinical program designed to address unsafe use of opioids prescribed for pain-the Opioid Reassessment Clinic (ORC)-to inform practice and health system improvement. Design: Controlled, retrospective cohort study. Setting: The ORC is a multidisciplinary clinic in a primary care setting in a Veterans Health Administration hospital designed to perform longitudinal treatment of patients with unsafe use of opioids prescribed for pain, including tapering or rotating to the partial opioid agonist buprenorphine. Subjects: We included patients referred to the ORC from March 1, 2016, to March 1, 2017, who had an intake appointment (intervention group) and who did not (control group). Methods: We compared a priori-defined metrics at the patient, clinic process, and health system levels and compared metrics between groups. Results: During the study period, 114 veterans were referred to the ORC, and 71 (62%) of these had an intake appointment. Those in the intervention group were more likely to trial buprenorphine (N = 41, 62% vs N = 1, 2%, P < 0.01) and had greater reductions in their full agonist morphine equivalent daily dose than those in the control group (30 mg [interquartile range {IQR} = 0-120] vs 0 mg [IQR = 0-20] decrease, P < 0.01). Of those engaging in the ORC, 20 (30%) had not transitioned chronic pain management back to their primary care providers (PCPs) by the end of follow-up. Only one patient transitioned the management of buprenorphine to the PCP. Conclusions: Results suggest the ORC was effective in reducing total prescribed opioid doses and in transitioning patients to partial-agonist therapy, but PCP adoption strategies are needed.

Compliance with Opioid Therapy: Distinguishing Clinical Characteristics and Demographics Among Patients with Cancer Pain.

Background: Because an increase of patients who misuse opioids has been identified in our cancer clinical setting through urine drug testing (UDT) and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patient's with Pain-Short Form (SOAPP-SF), we conducted this retrospective cohort study to identify patient characteristics that are associated with UDT that indicates noncompliance. Methods: Over a two-year period, 167 of 8,727 patients (2.4%) seen in the pain clinic and who underwent UDT were evaluated to determine compliance with prescribed opioid regimens. Descriptive clinical and demographic data were collected, and group differences based on compliance with opioid therapy were evaluated. Results: Fifty-eight percent of the patients were noncompliant with their prescribed opioid therapy. Noncompliant patients were younger than compliant patients, with a median age of 46 vs 49 years (P = 0.0408). Noncompliant patients were more likely to have higher morphine equivalent daily doses; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients with a history of alcohol (ETOH) (P = 0.0332), illicit drug use (P = 0.1014), and smoking (P = 0.4184) were more likely noncompliant. Univariate regression analysis showed that a history of ETOH use (P = 0.034), a history of anxiety (P = 0.027), younger age (P = 0.07), and a SOAPP-SF score of 4 or higher (P = 0.05) were associated with an abnormal UDT. Conclusions: History of ETOH use, anxiety, high SOAPP-SF score, and younger age were associated with UDT that indicates noncompliance. Given the very small percentage of UDT testing, it is quite likely that a significant number of patients who did not undergo UDT were also nonadherent with treatment recommendations.

A survey of acute pain services in the UK.

The organisational state of inpatient pain management in UK hospitals is difficult to determine. We sent an electronic questionnaire to 209 acute pain service leads throughout the UK. Questions were about staffing and service provision. We received 141 responses (67%); 47% of all UK hospitals. Each service was responsible for a median (IQR [range]) of 566 (400-839 [120-2800]) beds. Each acute pain specialist nurse was responsible for 299 (238-534 [70-1923]) beds. The mean (SD) number of consultant hours per week was 5.54 (4.62), delivered by a median of 1.0 (1.0-2.5 [0.2-7.0]) consultant. Overnight cover was provided by 20 (15%) acute pain services, and weekend cover by 39 (29%). Acute pain services commonly (in 50 (35%) hospitals) had roles in addition to acute pain management. Most teams (105, (77%)) reviewed medical patients and patients with chronic pain (in 131, (96%) teams). Half of the services (56, (49%)), reported that they were part of an integrated acute and chronic pain service, however, 83 (59%) did not have any members who work in chronic pain clinics. The majority (79, (70%)) were able to access a nominated chronic pain consultant for advice. Provision of acute pain services throughout the UK is highly variable. The majority do not meet core UK standards.

Improving satisfaction among established patients in a midwestern pain clinic.

BACKGROUND: A problem in many health care practices is deciding the appropriate appointment length for new and established patients. Patients become frustrated when there is inadequate time to have their needs met, yet when a patient's clinic time is spontaneously lengthened, the provider gets behind in schedule, causing delays and greater frustration for others. AIM: The aims of this evidence based project were to determine whether implementation of a flexible appointment system would improve the current scheduling process in a pain clinic by allowing complex patients the opportunity to schedule a longer clinic appointment and would improve patient satisfaction. DESIGN: This evidence-based practice innovation followed a program evaluation process using a descriptive, existing survey completed by clinic staff and patients. SETTING: A Midwestern pain clinic caring for patients with acute and chronic pain diagnoses. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 120 patients were surveyed before and after the process change. Thirteen staff members completed the survey on SurveyMonkey pre and post procedural change at the same intervals the patients were surveyed. RESULTS: Patients were more satisfied with the time that they spent in the exam room and the waiting room. The process change improved communication with staff and patients and provided an opportunity to discuss their concerns and health changes prior to their scheduled appointment. CONCLUSION: Allowing an option for flexible scheduling in appointment lengths provided an opportunity to meet patient needs, offer improved service, and improve patient-provider communication.

[Quality assurance of pain care in Austria : Classification of management facilities]. / Qualitätssicherung der schmerzmedizinischen Versorgung in Österreich : Klassifikation schmerztherapeutischer Einrichtungen.

In Austria there is no nationwide coverage of pain management, which meets even approximately international criteria. At present there are about 30 interdisciplinary pain management offices and clinics providing care according to a concept of the Austrian Pain Society (ÖSG), about 10 other outpatient pain clinics are located in district and country hospitals. A few years ago, there still were about 50 pain clinics. Yet closure of outpatient clinics and cost-cutting measures in the health sector jeopardize adequate pain relief for patients with chronic pain conditions.Hence, the supply of care for approx. 1.8 mio. Austrians with chronic pain is not guaranteed due to lack of a comprehensive demand planning of pain care facilities. Furthermore, existing structures such as specialized clinics or emergency services in hospitals are primarily based on the personal commitment of individuals. At present, the various centres for pain management in Austria are run with very different operating times, so that for 74% of the chronic pain patients the desired requirements for outpatient pain management are not met and about 50 full-time pain clinics are missing.Under the patronage of the Austrian Pain Society, various national specialist societies have defined the structure and quality criteria for pain management centres in Austria, include, among others, proof of training, cooperation in interdisciplinary teams or minimum number of new patients per year, depending on the classification of the institution.This stepwise concept of care provision for pain patients is intended as first step to help improve the care of pain patients in Austria!

Chronic Pain Features Relate to Quality of Life More than Physiopathology: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation in Pain Clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of chronic pain physiopathology on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), considering the influence of pain features and psychosocial adjustment (intensity, interference, psychological comorbidities, and sleep quality). DESIGN: A cross-sectional study involving 1,025 noncancer patients with predominantly neuropathic, nociceptive, or mixed chronic pain conditions was conducted in 88 pain clinics within Spain. The EuroQol-5 Dimensions instrument (EQ-5D) was used to measure HR-QoL. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and sleep scale developed for the MOS study (MOS-SQ) were used to measure pain features and psychosocial adjustment. Multivariate analyses were used to model HR-QoL measures. RESULTS: All patients reported very low HR-QoL. The mean EQ-5D index scores were 0.33, 0.36, and 0.37 in the mixed, neuropathic, and nociceptive pain groups, respectively. The differences did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.057). Patients with nociceptive pain had less pain (least pain intensity score: 4.7 vs. 5.2 in the other groups; P = 0.006), less interference with daily activities (BPI average interference score: 6.3 vs. 6.6 and 6.7 in the neuropathic and mixed pain groups, respectively; P = 0.013), less anxiety (HADS score: 8.5 vs. 9.6 and 9.7 in the same respective groups; P = 0.001), and fewer sleep problems (MOS-SQ sleep problems index: 46.8 vs. 52.2 and 50.2 in the same respective groups; P = 0.005). In the adjusted analyses, HR-QoL measures were explained by pain intensity, anxiety, and sleep quality, but not by physiopathological pain type. CONCLUSIONS: Pain features, particularly intensity, have a greater impact than pain physiopathology on HR-QoL. Distinct physiopathological mechanisms give rise to different pain features that, in turn, may mediate the HR-QoL of patients with chronic pain. This could be used to improve pain management strategies.

Assessment of Adults Experiencing Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Randomized Trial of Group Versus Individual Format at an Australian Tertiary Pain Service.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of a new group assessment format with conventional individual assessment. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial. SETTING: An Australian tertiary hospital multidisciplinary pain service. PATIENTS: Adults referred with chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: Following attendance at an education and orientation group, 211 participants were randomized to either a group assessment format (focused on supported self-assessment) or individual assessment. Follow-up occurred 3 months post-assessment and prior to subsequent pain service intervention. Outcome measures were pain intensity, pain interference, self-efficacy, psychological distress, health care utilization beyond the pain service, waiting time, participant satisfaction, and implementation of self-management strategies. RESULTS: Seventy-two participants undertook group assessment and 90 were assessed individually. Follow-up data were collected on 57 group and 72 individual assessment participants. Results revealed no significant differences between the two assessment formats in outcome with the exception of wait-times. Median wait-time to the first offer of assessment was 47 days for the group format and 144 days for individual. CONCLUSIONS: Group assessment provides a viable alternative to conventional individual assessment. The group assessment reduced wait-times while delivering otherwise comparable outcomes.

First Dutch Consensus of Pain Quality Indicators for Pain Treatment Facilities.

BACKGROUND: There is a general consensus about the need to define and improve the quality of pain treatment facilities. Although guidelines and recommendations to improve the quality of pain practice management have been launched, provision of appropriate pain treatment is inconsistent and the quality of facilities varies widely. The aim of the study was to develop an expert-agreed list of quality indicators applicable to pain treatment facilities. The list was also intended to be used as the basis for a set of criteria for registered status of pain treatment facilities. METHODS: The University Pain Center Maastricht at the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management of the Maastricht University Medical Center conducted a 3-round Delphi study in collaboration with the Board of the Pain Section of the Dutch Society of Anesthesiologists (NVA). RESULTS: Twenty-five quality indicators were selected as relevant to 2 types of pain treatment facilities, pain clinics and pain centers. The final expert-agreed list consisted of 22 quality indicators covering 7 quality domains: supervision, availability of care, staffing level and patient load, quality policy, multidisciplinarity, regionalization, and research and education. CONCLUSIONS: This set of quality indicators may facilitate organizational evaluation and improve insight into service quality from the perspectives of patients, pain specialists, and other healthcare professionals. Recommendations for improvements to the current set of quality indicators are made. In 2014 the process of registering pain treatment facilities in the Netherlands started; facilities can register as a pain clinic or pain center.

Dutch Multidisciplinary Guideline for Invasive Treatment of Pain Syndromes of the Lumbosacral Spine.

OBJECTIVES: When conservative therapies such as pain medication or exercise therapy fail, invasive treatment may be indicated for patients with lumbosacral spinal pain. The Dutch Society of Anesthesiologists, in collaboration with the Dutch Orthopedic Association and the Dutch Neurosurgical Society, has taken the initiative to develop the guideline "Spinal low back pain," which describes the evidence regarding diagnostics and invasive treatment of the most common spinal low back pain syndromes, that is, facet joint pain, sacroiliac joint pain, coccygodynia, pain originating from the intervertebral disk, and failed back surgery syndrome. METHODS: The aim of the guideline is to determine which invasive treatment intervention is preferred for each included pain syndrome when conservative treatment has failed. Diagnostic studies were evaluated using the EBRO criteria, and studies on therapies were evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. For the evaluation of invasive treatment options, the guideline committee decided that the outcome measures of pain, function, and quality of life were most important. RESULTS: The definition, epidemiology, pathophysiological mechanism, diagnostics, and recommendations for invasive therapy for each of the spinal back pain syndromes are reported. DISCUSSION: The guideline committee concluded that the categorization of low back pain into merely specific or nonspecific gives insufficient insight into the low back pain problem and does not adequately reflect which therapy is effective for the underlying disorder of a pain syndrome. Based on the guideline "Spinal low back pain," facet joint pain, pain of the sacroiliac joint, and disk pain will be part of a planned nationwide cost-effectiveness study.

An analysis of multidisciplinary staffing levels and clinical activity in Australian tertiary persistent pain services.

OBJECTIVE: To document staffing (medical, nursing, allied health [AH], administrative) in Australian multidisciplinary persistent pain services and relate them to clinical activity levels. METHODS: Of the 68 adult outpatient persistent pain services approached (Dec'08-Jan'10), 45 agreed to participate, received over 100 referrals/year, and met the contemporaneous International Association for the Study of Pain criteria for Level 1 or 2 multidisciplinary services. Structured interviews with Clinical Directors collected quantitative data regarding staff resources (disciplines, amount), services provided, funding models, and activity levels. RESULTS: Compared with Level 2 clinics, Level 1 centers reported higher annual demand (referrals), clinical activity (patient numbers) and absolute numbers of medical, nursing and administrative staff, but comparable numbers of AH staff. When staffing was assessed against activity levels, medical and nursing resources were consistent across services, but Level 1 clinics had relatively fewer AH and administrative staff. Metropolitan and rural services reported comparable activity levels and discipline-specific staff ratios (except occupational therapy). The mean annual AH staffing for pain management group programs was 0.03 full-time equivalent staff per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Reasonable consistency was demonstrated in the range and mix of most disciplines employed, suggesting they represented workable clinical structures. The greater number of medical and nursing staff within Level 1 clinics may indicate a lower multidisciplinary focus, but this needs further exploration. As the first multidisciplinary staffing data for persistent pain clinics, this provides critical information for designing and implementing clinical services. Mapping against clinical outcomes to demonstrate the impact of staffing patterns on safe and efficacious treatment delivery is required.

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.

Establishment and progress of the chest pain unit certification process in Germany and the local experiences of Mainz.

The establishment of chest pain units (CPUs) in the USA and UK has led to improvements in the prognosis of patients with chest pain and myocardial infarction, optimizing access to specialized diagnostic and therapeutic facilities and reducing costs. To establish a uniform implementation of this type of service in Germany, the German Cardiac Society (DGK) founded a 'CPU task force' in 2007, which developed a set of standard requirements and a nationwide certification programme. The recommendations for minimum standard requirements were published in 2008. As of November 2011, 132 CPUs were certified and 36 units were in the certification process. The aim of the DGK is to certify as many as 250 centres (units) throughout Germany within the next 2 years, to provide nationwide coverage. Applications from Switzerland are also being filed. Public awareness campaigns in cooperation with national league soccer teams were organized to raise awareness of the importance for early diagnosis and treatment of cardiac diseases and to publicize the existence of these new facilities. The German model of CPU certification allows nationwide and prospectively European-wide standardization of patient care and to improve adherence to international guidelines. Coupled with awareness campaigns and with the launch of a German CPU Registry, this process is aimed at improving the education and treatment of patients with chest pain and to provide scientific information about the quality of patient care.

[Quality of postoperative pain therapy: evaluation of an established anesthesiology acute pain service]. / Qualität der postoperativen Schmerztherapie : Evaluation eines etablierten anästhesiologischen Akutschmerzdiensts.

BACKGROUND: Despite well-designed concepts of perioperative pain management, recent studies have revealed that a large number of patients still suffer from unacceptable pain after surgery. The purpose of this prospective evaluation was to critically analyze postoperative pain treatment provided by a routinely established, DIN certified acute pain service (APS) at the University Hospital Großhadern in Munich. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1,000 consecutive patients received one of the following analgesic procedures: continuous epidural analgesia (EA, n = 401), continuous and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA, n = 305), intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids (PCA, n = 169) or continuous peripheral nerve block (CPNB, n = 125). For EA and PCEA, ropivacaine 0.2 % and sufentanil 0.24 µg/ml were administered while peripheral regional analgesia was performed with infusion of ropivacaine 0.2 % only. Patients with PCEA were allowed a 3 mg bolus once per hour on demand. Standardized intravenous PCA was performed with piritramide 2.5 mg/ml, a bolus of 2.5 mg, a lock-out time of 15 min, a maximum of 25 mg/4 h and no background infusion. During the daily visits the APS assessed pain intensity at rest and during movement on a numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain), acceptance of pain, satisfaction with the analgesic procedure, demand of additional non-opioid analgesics, the need for optimization including bolus applications and changes of the infusion rate or retraction of the epidural catheter. The duration of the procedures, side effects and complications were documented. The catheter insertion sites were inspected daily for redness and tenderness on palpation. RESULTS: In general, epidural and peripheral regional analgesic techniques were superior in terms of postoperative analgesia to intravenous opioid PCA and were associated with fewer side effects, such as sedation, nausea, vomiting, obstipation and sensorimotor deficits. A subgroup analysis revealed that in major upper abdominal surgery, EA provided significantly better analgesia at rest and during movement than PCA. In lower abdominal surgery PCEA induced significantly better analgesia than both PCA and EA, especially during movement. Patient satisfaction was generally high and was best with PCEA (95 %) followed by CPNB (94 %), EA (91 %) and PCA (88 %). On the first postoperative day analgesic procedures had to be optimized (e.g. by bolus administration, retraction of catheters or changes to standardized PCA) in 23 % of EA patients, 10 % of PCEA patients, 6 % of PCA patients and 12 % of CPNB patients. Major complications, such as neuraxial hematoma, infections or respiratory depression were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: As described in many prospective studies, this evaluation revealed that for postoperative pain control, regional anesthesia is superior to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with strong opioids in terms of analgesia and side effects. In the setting of a well-organized acute pain service with frequent education and training of all members involved, postoperative pain management is safe and effective. However, regular re-evaluation of the defined and certified procedures is necessary.

[Role of chronic pain management structures]. / Place des structures de prise en charge de la douleur chronique.

The chronic pain management structures were identified by the French health authorities regarding two levels: consultation (with a pluri-professional organization and proximity missions) and the center (with a multidisciplinary organization and expertise). Access to these structures is facilitated by guidelines published in 2008 by the Haute Autorité de santé.

Developing a pediatric pain service.

Pediatric pain services were first established in larger pediatric centers over two decades ago. Children's acute pain was poorly managed at the time owing to misconceptions, safety concerns, and variability in practice. While many larger pediatric centers now have acute pain services, there remains a need for better pain management in facilities and geographic locations with fewer resources. Institutional acknowledgement and desire to change, appropriate staffing, and funding are major obstacles. Better recognition and assessment as well safer and more efficacious treatment of pain are the principal objectives when establishing a pain service. It is important to determine whether the proposed service intends to treat acute, chronic, procedural, and/or cancer and palliative pain as each requires different skills and resources. An ideal and comprehensive pediatric pain service should be equipped to diagnose and treat acute, persistent (chronic), procedural, and cancer/palliative pain. It is not feasible or necessary for every hospital to manage all. Establishing the scope of practice (based on case mix and caseload) in any given hospital will determine which resources are desired. Country-specific standards, local staffing, and fiscal constraints will influence which resources are available.