Search

Poor management of post-operative acute pain can contribute to medical complications including pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, infection and delayed healing, as well as the development of chronic pain. It is therefore important that all patients undergoing surgery should receive adequate pain management. However, evidence suggests this is not currently the case; between 10% and 50% of patients develop chronic pain after various common operations, and one recent US study recorded >80% of patients experiencing post-operative pain. At the first meeting of the acute chapter of the Change Pain Advisory Board, key priorities for improving post-operative pain management were identified in four different areas. Firstly, patients should be more involved in decisions regarding their own treatment, particularly when fateful alternatives are being considered. For this to be meaningful, relevant information should be provided so they are well informed about the various options available. Good physician/patient communication is also essential. Secondly, better professional education and training of the various members of the multidisciplinary pain management team would enhance their skills and knowledge, and thereby improve patient care. Thirdly, there is scope for optimizing treatment. Examples include the use of synergistic analgesia to target pain at different points along pain pathways, more widespread adoption of patient-controlled analgesia, and the use of minimally invasive rather than open surgery. Fourthly, organizational change could provide similar benefits; introducing acute pain services and increasing their availability towards the 24 hours/day ideal, greater adherence to protocols, increased use of patient-reported outcomes, and greater receptivity to technological advances would all help to enhance performance and increase patient satisfaction. It must be acknowledged that implementing these recommendations would incur a considerable cost that purchasers of healthcare may be unwilling or unable to finance. Nevertheless, change is under way and the political will exists for it to continue.

Despite the introduction of evidence-based recommendations for postoperative pain management (POPM), the consensus is that pain control remains suboptimal. Barriers to achieving patient-satisfactory analgesia include deficient knowledge regarding POPM among staff, lack of instructions, insufficient pain assessments and sub-optimal treatment. Effective monitoring of POPM is essential to enable policy makers and healthcare providers to improve the quality of care. Quality indicators (QIs) are quantitative measures of clinical practice that can monitor, evaluate and guide the quality of care provided to patients. QIs can be used to assess various aspects relating to the care process and they have proven useful in improving health outcomes in diseases such as myocardial infarction. In this commentary we critically analyze the evidence regarding the use of QIs in acute POPM based upon the experience of pain specialists from Europe and the USA who are members of the Change Pain Advisory Board. We also undertook a literature review to see what has been published on QIs in acute pain with the goal of assessing which QIs have been developed and used, and which ones have been successful/unsuccessful. In the hospital sector the development and implementation of QIs is complex. The nature of POPM requires a highly trained, multidisciplinary team and it is at this level that major improvements can be made. Greater involvement of patients regarding pain management is also seen as a priority area for improving clinical outcomes. Changes in structure and processes to deliver high-level quality care need to be regularly audited to ensure translation into better outcomes. QIs can help drive this process by providing an indicator of current levels of performance. In addition, outcomes QIs can be used to benchmark levels of performance between different healthcare providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the increasing clinical use of transdermal buprenorphine, questions have persisted about the possibility of a ceiling effect for analgesia, its combination with other μ-opioid agonists, and the reversibility of side effects. In October 2008, a consensus group of experts met to review recent research into the pharmacology and clinical use of buprenorphine. The objective was to achieve consensus on the conclusions to be drawn from this work. It was agreed that buprenorphine clearly behaves as a full μ-opioid agonist for analgesia in clinical practice, with no ceiling effect, but that there is a ceiling effect for respiratory depression, reducing the likelihood of this potentially fatal adverse event. This is entirely consistent with receptor theory. In addition, the effects of buprenorphine can be completely reversed by naloxone. No problems are encountered when switching to and from buprenorphine and other opioids, or in combining them. Buprenorphine exhibits a pronounced antihyperalgesic effect that might indicate potential advantages in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Other beneficial properties are the compound's favorable safety profile, particularly in elderly patients and those with renal impairment, and its lack of effect on sex hormones and the immune system. The expert group agreed that these properties, as well as proven efficacy in severe pain and favorable tolerability, mean that buprenorphine can be considered a safe and effective option for treating chronic cancer and noncancer pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]