Search

Due to the implementation of the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system, the competitive pressure on German hospitals increased. In this context it has been shown that acute pain management offers economic benefits for hospitals. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the competitive situation, the ownership and the economic resources required on structures and processes for acute pain management.A standardized questionnaire on structures and processes of acute pain management was mailed to the 885 directors of German departments of anesthesiology listed as members of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin).For most hospitals a strong regional competition existed; however, this parameter affected neither the implementation of structures nor the recommended treatment processes for pain therapy. In contrast, a clear preference for hospitals in private ownership to use the benchmarking tool QUIPS (quality improvement in postoperative pain therapy) was found. These hospitals also presented information on coping with the management of pain in the corporate clinic mission statement more often and published information about the quality of acute pain management in the quality reports more frequently. No differences were found between hospitals with different forms of ownership in the implementation of acute pain services, quality circles, expert standard pain management and the implementation of recommended processes. Hospitals with a higher case mix index (CMI) had a certified acute pain management more often. The corporate mission statement of these hospitals also contained information on how to cope with pain, presentation of the quality of pain management in the quality report, implementation of quality circles and the implementation of the expert standard pain management more frequently. There were no differences in the frequency of using the benchmarking tool QUIPS or the implementation of recommended treatment processes with respect to the CMI.In this survey no effect of the competitive situation of hospitals on acute pain management could be demonstrated. Private ownership and a higher CMI were more often associated with structures of acute pain management which were publicly accessible in terms of hospital marketing.

In 2007, the German national guidelines on "Treatment of acute perioperative and post-traumatic pain" were published. The aim of this study was to describe current structure and process data for acute pain management in German hospitals and to compare how the guidelines and other initiatives such as benchmarking or certification changed the healthcare landscape in the last decade.All directors of German departments of anesthesiology according to the DGAI ("Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin", German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care) were mailed a standardized questionnaire on structures and processes of acute pain management in their hospitals.A total of 403 completed questionnaires (46 %) could be evaluated. Of hospitals, 81 % had an acute pain service (ASD), whereby only 45 % met defined quality criteria. Written standards for acute pain management were available in 97 % of the hospitals on surgical wards and 51 % on nonsurgical wards. In 96 %, perioperative pain was regularly recorded (generally pain at rest and/or movement, pain-related functional impairment in 16 % only). Beside these routine measurements, only 38 % of hospitals monitored pain for effectiveness after acute medications. Often interdisciplinary working groups and/or pain managers are established for hospital-wide control. As specific therapy, the patient-controlled analgesia and epidural analgesia are largely prevalent ( 90 % of all hospitals). In the last decade, intravenous and oral opioid administration of opioids (including slow release preparations) has become established in acute pain management.The survey was representative by evaluating 20 % of all German hospitals. The organizational requirements for appropriate pain management recommended by the German guidelines for acute pain recommended have been established in the hospital sector in recent years. However, the organizational enforcement for acute pain management in nonsurgical areas is not adequate yet, compared to the perioperative care. In all hospitals modern medication and invasive techniques are widely available.

Data on practice and quality of postoperative pain treatment by anaesthesiologists after ambulatory surgery are sparse. The current survey enrolled anaesthesiologists in private practice who were responsible for pain therapy after ambulatory surgery. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the implementation of the German S3 guidelines for acute and postoperative pain therapy in the outpatient setting.A total of 2,156 anaesthesiologists in private practice received a postal questionnaire which was limited to those anaesthesiologists who were responsible for postoperative pain therapy. The questionnaire included items such as types of surgery, techniques of anaesthesia and analgesic drugs used for pain management during the immediate postoperative phase and for the treatment at home as well as details of pain measurement.Out of 116 responses 108 could be analyzed covering a total of 86,616 patients receiving postoperative pain therapy, 80% of the operations were performed using general anaesthesia and local anaesthesia was additionally used in 9% of the institutions. In the perioperative period 66% of the respondents administered non-steroidal-antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), 62% metamizol (dipyrone), 41% paracetamol (acetaminophen) and 73% opioids. After discharge 81% of the responding anaesthesiologists prescribed NSAIDs, 55% metamizol and 47% opioids for pain relief at home. Only 40% of the respondents measured and documented pain intensity. Nearly all respondents (93%) were satisfied with their pain management after outpatient surgery.Pain therapy after ambulatory surgery significantly varied with respect to the methods, drugs and measures of quality assurance used by anaesthesiologists in private praxis. This survey demonstrated that the national guidelines of acute pain therapy have only been partially implemented.

Recent advances in knowledge about gene structure derived from the human genome project has also revealed data on genomic variation and their possible impact on complex and acute diseases as well as pharmacotherapy. The hypothesis of a genetic predisposition for complex diseases such as pain syndromes, side effects, and adverse outcomes challenging the clinician is ready to be tested by advanced genetic-epidemiologic study designs employing the latest genotyping technology. In pain therapy, the genetic background of the efficacy of analgesics, especially of opioids, is of particular interest. Genetic differences in drug kinetics and dynamics, e.g., differences in metabolism or genetic variations of the drug target (e.g., receptors) will be of importance in the future. Pharmacogenetics can individualize pharmacotherapy and improve care by predicting the optimal dose and avoiding side effects and toxicity in individual patients.