Search

Background and Objective: Pain is a common symptom in patients who survive cancer and in those who live with progressive advanced disease. Evidence from meta-analyses suggests that pain remains poorly controlled for a large proportion of patients; barriers to good management include poor assessment of pain, inadequate support for patient self-management and late or inadequate access to strong opioid analgesia in those with advanced disease., Methods: The European Pain Federation (EFIC) established a Task Force in 2017 which convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate standards for the management of cancer-related pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and made recommendations using the GRADE system to combine quality of evidence with strength of recommendation. The panel took into account the desirable and undesirable effects of the management recommendation, including the cost and inconvenience of each when deciding the recommendation., Results and Conclusions: The 10 standards presented are aimed to improve cancer pain management and reduce variation in practice across Europe. The Task Force believes that adoption of these standards by all 37 countries will promote the quality of care of patients with cancer-related pain and reduce unnecessary suffering., Significance: Pain affects up to 40% of cancer survivors and affects at least 66% of patients with advanced progressive disease, many of whom experience poor pain control. These 10 standards are aimed to improve cancer pain management, promote the quality of care of patients and reduce variation across Europe., (© 2018 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Objective: Pain is one of the most common reasons for an individual to consult their primary care physician, with most chronic pain being treated in the primary care setting. However, many primary care physicians/non-pain medicine specialists lack enough awareness, education and skills to manage pain patients appropriately, and there is currently no clear, common consensus/formal definition of "pain chronification"., Methods: This article, based on an international Change Pain Chronic Advisory Board meeting which was held in Wiesbaden, Germany, in October 2016, provides primary care physicians/non-pain medicine specialists with a narrative overview of pain chronification, including underlying physiological and psychosocial processes, predictive factors for pain chronification, a brief summary of preventive strategies, and the role of primary care physicians and non-pain medicine specialists in the holistic management of pain chronification., Results: Based on currently available evidence, we propose the following consensus-based definition of pain chronification which provides a common framework to raise awareness among non-pain medicine specialists: "Pain chronification describes the process of transient pain progressing into persistent pain; pain processing changes as a result of an imbalance between pain amplification and pain inhibition; genetic, environmental and biopsychosocial factors determine the risk, the degree, and time-course of chronification.", Conclusions: Early intervention plays an important role in preventing pain chronification and, as key influencers in the management of patients with acute pain, it is critical that primary care physicians are equipped with the necessary awareness, education and skills to manage pain patients appropriately.

Studies on the concurrent validity of clinically applicable testing protocols for conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) in breast cancer survivors (BCS) with persistent pain are lacking.

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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Chronic pain affects a large proportion of the population, imposing significant individual distress and a considerable burden on society, yet treatment is not always instituted and/or adequate. Comprehensive multidisciplinary management based on the biopsychosocial model of pain has been shown to be clinically effective and cost-efficient, but is not widely available. A literature review of stakeholder groups revealed many reasons for this, including: i) many patients believe healthcare professionals lack relevant knowledge, and consultations are rushed, ii) general practitioners consider that pain management has a low priority and is under-resourced, iii) pain specialists cite non-adherence to evidence-based treatment, sub-optimal prescribing, and chronic pain not being regarded as a disease in its own right, iv) nurses’, pharmacists’ and physiotherapists’ skills are not fully utilized, and v) psychological therapy is employed infrequently and often too late. Many of the issues relating to physicians could be addressed by improving medical training, both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels – for example, by making pain medicine a compulsory core subject of the undergraduate medical curriculum. This would improve physician/patient communication, increase the use of standardized pain assessment tools, and allow more patients to participate in treatment decisions. Patient care would also benefit from improved training for other multidisciplinary team members; for example, nurses could provide counseling and follow-up support, psychologists offer coping skills training, and physiotherapists have a greater role in rehabilitation. Equally important measures include the widespread adoption of a patient-centered approach, chronic pain being recognized as a disease in its own right, and the development of universal guidelines for managing chronic non-cancer pain. Perhaps the greatest barrier to improvement is lack of political will at both national and international level. Some powerful initiatives and collaborations are currently lobbying policy-making bodies to raise standards and reduce unnecessary pain – it is vital they continue. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

One of the essences of rehabilitation is enhancing a persons' functioning and participation in society, including work. According to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), participation can be influenced by a wide range of factors, including pain. In many patients with a pain complaint a neuropathic pain component is present. To steer (vocational) rehabilitation, it is important to recognize the presence of neuropathic pain. Expensive and time-consuming instrumental tests (e.g. Quantitative Sensory Testing) to identify presence of neuropathic pain are available in specialized centers but not applicable in daily clinical practice in rehabilitation settings. The aim of this manuscript is to give an overview of alternative screening and assessment methods of neuropathic pain that are applicable in a daily clinical setting and for the different professionals who may be involved in rehabilitation (e.g., physical therapists, occupation! therapists, counselors, etc). The first part elaborates on the definition of neuropathic pain and common terminology. Second, basic anatomy and physiology related to neuropathic pain are presented needed to understand neuropathic pain. Third, the relevant aspects of clinical history and clinical examination are discussed. Finally, screening tools for neuropathic pain and alternative clinical assessments methods for Quantitative Sensory Testing are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]