Search

Introduction: The present study audited the process of assessing and selecting patients for a pain management programme with the aim of reviewing best practice in the light of the latest British Pain Society guidelines for pain management programmes for adults. The guidelines include defined inclusion/exclusion criteria and it was explored how they are used by clinicians providing a pain management service. Method: The records of 200 consecutive patients who attended a multidisciplinary assessment for a central London specialist Pain Management Service from September 2014 to December 2014 were audited. The proportions of patients who were offered a programme, were discharged or referred for a different service were calculated. Clinic letters were reviewed to collect information on assessment outcomes, recommendations and inclusion/exclusion criteria used. Results: About half the patients (53%) seen for assessment were offered treatment within the service, most frequently the intensive residential programme (30.5%, with an additional 11.6% offered case management first), followed by the five session outpatient programme (8.1%) and a minority was offered individual treatment (2.5%); 44.7% of the patients were discharged following the assessment. The three most frequently used reasons for exclusion were: not ready to engage with the pain management approach (35%), complex psychological or other needs needing to be prioritised (29.5%) and the patient declining a programme (19.3%). Conclusion: Reviewing the use of inclusion/exclusion criteria revealed some challenges regarding patient selection. For example, a sizable proportion of patients were still seeking pain reduction and were not open to a self-management approach when this was the recommended treatment for them. Complex patients might need other treatment approaches before they can be considered for a programme. Having a range of pain management options of varying intensities available seems helpful in meeting individual patient need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical functioning is a recommended outcome domain for pain management programmes. It can be assessed by self-report and by direct assessment of performance. Although physical performance measures may provide unique and useful information about patient functioning over and above selfreport measures, it is not entirely clear which of the many possible performances to assess. This study investigated a battery of three directly assessed physical performance measures and their relationship to three currently used self-report measures of general health and functioning. The three performance measures were sensitive to treatment; patients performed significantly better on all three measures following completion of the pain management programme. The three performance measures were shown to represent a single underlying dimension, and there was a significant degree of overlap between them. The performance measures were shown to be relevant in explaining variation in the self-report measures, as well as to offer a clinically relevant different dimension of assessment to self-report. Future research could focus on developing performance-based measures that capture quality of movement and that are sensitive to relevant processes of therapeutic change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]