Search

Background Many patients with cancer suffer from pain, which is often not optimally treated. In 2008, the evidence-based, multidisciplinary Dutch guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of pain in this patient group was published. We assessed knowledge about and adherence to the guideline by pain specialists. Methods A cross-sectional case vignette survey describing a palliative patient with intractable pancreatic cancer and pain was sent to all 350 Dutch anesthesiologists registered as pain specialists at the Netherlands Association of Anesthesiology. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results Ninety-three pain specialists completed the questionnaire (27%). The majority appeared to follow the guideline recommendations on pharmacological (99%) and invasive treatment (95%) in the diverse stages of the disease. However, the recommendation to use a one-dimensional pain scale to evaluate the effect of pain treatment and the recommendation to perform a multidimensional pain assessment if the patient in pain is in a deteriorating stage were only followed by a minority of the respondents (23% and 15%, respectively). Conclusions Regarding most recommendations, Dutch pain specialists know and intend to follow the national multidisciplinary cancer pain guideline. Yet, only a minority of them perform structural pain assessment of the patient with cancer pain. However, as the response rate was low (27%), the results should be interpreted with caution and cannot be generalized to the entire population of pain specialists in the Netherlands. We recommend that, in the guideline update and implementation programs, more attention be given to thorough assessment of the patient with pain and cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Dutch clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and management of pain in patients with cancer was published in 2008 and intensively promoted to healthcare professionals who see patients with cancer. One of the most important recommendations is the systematic registering of the pain and its intensity. To evaluate in which degree this part of the practice guideline is implemented, we analyzed the medical records of patients attending the outpatient oncological clinic in an academic hospital, a large teaching hospital, and 4 smaller peripheral hospitals. None of the participating hospitals assessed pain by a standardized scale. Reference to pain in the medical record happened more frequently in the academic hospital than in the other hospitals. The frequency of recording pain in the medical record in the academic hospital was much higher in this study than the one previously reported, whereas the findings in the other hospitals were comparable. There may be several reasons for the difference in reporting rate of pain in patients with cancer. Our findings indicate that the clinical practice guideline with regard to pain registration is poorly implemented in oncology outpatient clinics. More efforts should be made to generate the awareness for the need of pain registration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with advanced cancer experience problems and unmet needs. However, we assume that patients with advanced cancer will have more problems and unmet needs in a country with a lower economic status than in an economically stronger country. We studied whether patients with advanced cancer in Indonesia have more problems and unmet needs than a similar group of patients in the Netherlands. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey. We compared the data for 180 Indonesian and 94 Dutch patients relating to 24 items of the Problems and Needs in Palliative Care-short version questionnaire. We performed descriptive and χ2 analysis with Bonferroni correction. Results The prevalence of most physical problems, including pain, was similar in the 2 groups. In Indonesia, financial problems were the most common: 70 to 80% vs. 30 to 42% in the Netherlands. In Indonesia, 25 to 50% of the patients reported psychological and autonomy problems versus 55 to 86% in the Netherlands. The Indonesian group had many more unmet needs for each problem (> 54%) than the Dutch group (< 35%). Conclusion Apparently, economic and cultural differences hardly influence physical problems. Nonetheless, fewer Indonesian patients reported psychological and autonomy problems than Dutch patients. This difference contradicts our hypothesis. However, we found more unmet needs for professional attention in Indonesia than in the Netherlands, which is compatible with our hypothesis. These simple comparative data provide interesting insights into problems and unmet needs and give rise to our new hypothesis about cultural influences. This hypothesis should be studied in more depth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Systematic pain registration and assessment with a visual analog scale ( VAS) or numeric rating scale ( NRS) at each visit are key recommendations in one of the most recent guidelines on cancer pain management. It is unclear whether this recommendation is applied. Objectives The aim was to explore registration of pain in medical records of patients visiting the medical oncology outpatient clinic. Methods In a multicenter study in six Dutch hospitals, data were extracted from medical records of 380 outpatients with cancer. Data of the first three visits at the outpatient clinic were studied. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results In 23% of all 987 visits at the outpatient clinic, pain or absence of pain was registered, and in an additional 15%, a nonspecific symptom description was given. Regarding all other visits, (62%) pain or absence of pain was not documented at all. Pain measurement using a VAS or NRS was documented in only one visit. Pain was more often registered in medical records of patients with metastasis, as well as in those of patients with urogenital tumors. Conclusion Pain in medical oncology outpatients is not systematically registered in their medical records. With one exception, pain was not registered with a VAS or NRS. Yet, registration and assessment of pain to monitor pain are essential to evaluate and adapt pain treatment over time. Pain registration has not improved since 2001 and therefore implementing the recommendations regarding systematic monitoring of pain is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This study aims to test the accuracy of the Nijmegen Observer-Rated Depression (NORD) scale, a new short scale for screening of depression in nursing home (NH) residents with and without dementia. Methods This cross-sectional study with 103 residents with dementia ( N = 19 depressed) and 72 residents without dementia ( N = 10 depressed) was undertaken in 13 Dutch NH units. An elderly care physician and a psychologist of each unit assessed residents for the presence of clinical depression. Primary professional caregivers administered the NORD scale. Results Five of the six proposed items showed acceptable performance in screening for depression. Receiver operating characteristic analyses revealed significant areas under the empirical curve (AUC) for the 5-item NORD scale in the total sample ( AUC = 0.83, p < 0.001), as well as in residents with dementia ( AUC = 0.84, p < 0.001) and without dementia ( AUC = 0.84, p < 0.001). The cutoff score of >1 showed the highest sum of sensitivity (100) and specificity (69) in non-dementia and >2 the highest sum of sensitivity (79) and specificity (77) in dementia. The cutoff score of >1 showed the lowest negative likelihood ratio of 0.0 in non-dementia and of 0.2 in dementia. The highest positive likelihood ratios were found for the cutoff of >2 in non-dementia (3.4) and for >4 in dementia (26.5). Conclusion The 5-item NORD scale showed acceptable accuracy comparable with those of more extensive scales in other studies. It is easy and quick to administer and can be used for screening of depression in NH residents with or without dementia. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]