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]

Background: There is a gap between readily available evidence of best practice and its use in everyday palliative care. The IMPACT study evaluated the potential of facilitated use of Quality Indicators as tools to improve palliative care in different settings in England. Methods: 1) Modelling palliative care services and selecting a set of Quality Indicators to form the core of an intervention, 2) Case studies of intervention using the Quality Indicator set supported by an expert in service change in selected settings (general practice, community palliative care teams, care homes, hospital wards, in-patient hospices) with a before-and-after evaluation, and 3) realist evaluation of processes and outcomes across settings. Participants in each setting were supported to identify no more than three Quality Indicators to work on over an eight-month period in 2013/2014. Results: General practices could not be recruited to the study. Care homes were recruited but not retained. Hospital wards were recruited and retained, and using the Quality Indicator (QI) set achieved some of their desired changes. Hospices and community palliative care teams were able to use the QI set to achieve almost all their desired changes, and develop plans for quality improvements. Improvements included: increasing the utility of electronic medical records, writing a manual for end of life care, establishing working relationships with a hospice; standardising information transfer between settings, holding regular multi-disciplinary team meetings, exploration of family carers' views and experiences; developing referral criteria, and improvement of information transfer at patient discharge to home or to hospital. Realist evaluation suggested that: 1) uptake and use of QIs are determined by organisational orientation towards continuous improvement; 2) the perceived value of a QI package was not powerful enough for GPs and care homes to commit to or sustain involvement; 3) the QI set may have been to narrow in focus, or more specialist than generalist; and 4) the greater the settings''top-down' engagement with this change project, the more problematic was its implementation. Conclusions: Whilst use of QIs may facilitate improvements in specialist palliative care services, different QI sets may be needed for generalist care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pain and neuropathic symptoms impact quality of life of patients with cancer. To obtain more insight in the prevalence, severity, and treatment of neuropathic symptoms in patients with cancer and their interference with daily activities, we conducted a cross-sectional study at the outpatient clinic of a Dutch university hospital. Methods A cross-sectional study among outpatients with cancer. To identify pain, its intensity, quality, and interference with daily activities, the Brief Pain Inventory ( BPI) was used. Neuropathic symptoms were identified with the Douleur Neuropathique ( DN4) interview and pain characteristics with the McGill Pain Questionnaire ( MPQ). Pain medication and adjuvant analgesics were also collected with a prestructured questionnaire. Descriptives, chi-squared tests, t-tests, and a logistic regression analysis were conducted. Results 892 patients completed the questionnaires. Twenty-three percent ( n = 204) reported moderate to severe pain, and 19% ( n = 170) scored positive on neuropathic symptoms ( DN4 ≥ 3). Particularly in patients with a rating on a numeric rating scale ( NRS) < 5, existence of neuropathic symptoms significantly increased interference with daily activities. Of patients with neuropathic symptoms, 8% received adjuvant pain treatment. Receiving curative treatment, using a systemic drug with neurotoxicity, having had an operation, and having had a lymph node dissection independently contributed to having neuropathic symptoms. Conclusions This study shows that over 40% of the patients with moderate to severe pain also have neuropathic symptoms, causing increased interference with daily activities. Most of these patients do not receive adjuvant analgesics. There is a need to improve management of neuropathic symptoms in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Pain is a major problem in all cancer stages. Cancer pain guidelines are developed to improve management of pain. It is unclear whether these recommendations are applied in daily practice. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess medical oncologists' adherence to an evidence-based clinical practice guideline in cancer pain management and their confidence in treatment choices. Methods: A cross-sectional case vignette survey describing a patient with intractable pancreatic cancer and pain was sent to all 268 medical oncologists registered at the Netherlands Association of Internal Medicine. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results: Sixty-three of 268 medical oncologists (24 %) completed the survey. Adherence to the different recommendations of the guideline ranged from 18 to 100 %. Confidence for treatment choice ranged from 5.6 to 9.5 on a Numeric Rating Scale (0-10). Most of the responding oncologists (94 %) adhered to prescribing paracetamol as first-line pain treatment, and all prescribed a laxative in combination with opioids to prevent constipation. However, only 24 % of the respondents adhered to the guideline when first-line treatment had insufficient effect. Additionally, only 35 % adhered to the recommendation for insomnia treatment providing psychosocial support or using a multidimensional pain questionnaire besides pharmacological treatment. Finally, only 18 % adhered to the recommendation to perform a multidimensional pain assessment when disease worsens and pain increases. Conclusions: The recommendations of the guideline have been partly adopted in cancer pain practice by medical oncologists. Particularly, pain assessment is not applied in the recommended manner. Therefore, implementation strategies should focus on adequate pain assessment in patients with cancer. [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 More than 50% of patients with cancer experience pain. Patient empowerment has been highlighted as central to success in pain management. Up to now, no clear model for this patient group exists, yet several strategies to empower patients have been used in clinical practice. This review examines how empowerment or related concepts have been described in relation to pain management in patients with cancer. With the help of a conceptual model, recommendations for clinical practice are provided. Methods An integrative review was conducted, using the databases PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We evaluated papers discussing empowerment or related concepts in relation to pain management in patients with cancer. We analyzed the term 'empowerment' semantically. Results From a total of 5984 identified papers, 34 were included for analysis. Empowerment has been described with the concepts self-efficacy, active patient participation, increasing abilities, and control of life. Most papers focus on pain treatment induced by the professional caregiver or on the active involvement of the patient, and not on the combination of both. The following elements of empowerment could be discriminated: role of the patient, role of the professional, resources, self-efficacy, active coping, and shared decision making. Conclusions On the basis of these findings, we propose a conceptual model to empower patients in controlling cancer pain. We recommend focusing on pain treatment given by the professional, on the active involvement of the patient, and on the interaction of both. Our model might also be useful for other patient groups or specific contexts, especially in symptom management. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large numbers of vulnerable patients are in need of palliative cancer and dementia care. However, a wide gap exists between the knowledge of best practices in palliative care and their use in everyday clinical practice. As part of a European policy improvement program, quality indicators(QIs) have been developed to monitor and improve the organisation of palliative care for patients with cancer and those with dementia in various settings in different European countries. Method: A multidisciplinary, international panel of professionals participated in a modified RAND Delphi procedure to compose a set of palliative care QIs based on existing sets of QIs on the organisation of palliative care. Panellists participated in three written rounds, one feedback round and one meeting. The panel's median votes were used to identify the final set of QIs. Results: The Delphi procedure resulted in 23 useful QIs. These QIs represent key elements of the organisation of good clinical practice, such as the availability of palliative care teams, the availability of special facilities to provide palliative care for patients and their relatives, and the presence of educational interventions for professionals. The final set also includes QIs that are related to the process of palliative care, such as documentation of pain and other symptoms, communication with patients in need of palliative care and their relatives, and end-of-life decisions. Conclusion: International experts selected a set of 23 QIs for the organisation of palliative care. Although we particularly focused on the organisation of cancer and dementia palliative care, most QIs are generic and are applicable for other types of diseases as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Neuropathic pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer, which needs a more specific algorithm than nociceptive pain or neuropathic pain from other origin. Clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) can be helpful in optimizing the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. Methods In this study, 9 national CPGs in Europe on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year, and type of publication) were compared between CPGs. Results Nine CPGs including recommendations on neuropathic pain could be selected and were assessed. In total, they used 149 references of which 72 (48%) were about cancer conditions, 39 (26%) about neuropathic pain, and only 3 about neuropathic pain in patients with cancer (2%). Only 28 (19%) references were shared between 2 or more guidelines. There was only one shared reference specifically related to cancer neuropathic pain. Recommendations and their evidence grading strongly differ between CPGs. Conclusion This work demonstrates an important heterogeneity between European recommendations on diagnosis and assessment of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. The main weaknesses are the low level of evidence and the absence of specific data focusing on neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. We recommend that physicians dealing with neuropathic pain in patients with cancer should be specially trained, that a specific methodology to develop CPGs should followed, and that specific research should be developed on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 19% and 39% of patients with cancer pain suffer from neuropathic pain. Its diagnosis and treatment is still challenging. Yet, national clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) have been developed in several European countries to assist practitioners in managing these patients safely and legally. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the development and reporting of these CPGs. Methods In collaboration with the European Federation of IASP Chapters, a European inventory of CPGs was conducted. Inclusion criteria were at least one paragraph dedicated to the treatment of neuropathic pain in cancer. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument, 2 appraisers independently assessed the quality of the development process of the included CPGs in 6 quality domains. Besides, CPGs developed by governmental organization were compared with those developed by professional societies using t-tests. Results Mean scores of the domains 'scope and purpose' (80%) and 'clarity of presentation' (61%) were satisfactory, 'stakeholder involvement' (58%), 'rigor of development' (57%), and 'editorial independence' (53%) were acceptable, and 'applicability' was insufficient (39%). Governmental guidelines had higher quality scores than professional society guidelines for domain 'stakeholder involvement' and 'editorial independence' ( P < 0.01). Conclusions The quality of the development process of the 9 included CPGs varied widely. CPGs should be developed within a structured guideline program, including methodological support. As developing a CPG is expensive and time-consuming, we recommend more international cooperation to increase quality and lower the development costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]