Search

The quality of postoperative pain therapy in Germany shows a heterogeneous treatment practice and large differences in quality between individual institutions, The patient representatives in the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) have therefore decisively campaigned for many years that instruments of non-legislative standards are employed in order to noticeably improve the quality of perioperative pain therapy for patients in Germany. As a result of these efforts, in October 2020 a binding specification for internal quality management was included in the quality management guidelines (QM-RL) by the G‑BA. This describes in concrete terms the structural and procedural requirements for an internal quality management of acute pain for all institutions in which operations and comparable potentially painful interventions are carried out. This article describes the content of this regulation and the resulting consequences for the institutions, the medical and administrative management and especially the role of anesthesia., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches.With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments.

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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.

Background: 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., Patients and Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., (© Deutsche Gesellschaft zum Studium des Schmerzes)

Background: Outpatient surgeons were surveyed about the quality of postoperative pain therapy after outpatient interventions., Patients and Methods: Of 2,317 outpatient surgeons who received a questionnaire by mail, 419 responded. The return rate was 18.1%. The questionnaire collected data on the operative procedures and methods of anesthesia from 2004 and the analgesics, which were applied in the immediate postoperative period and at home. Methods and contents of quality control were registered., Results: The respondents indicated that the person responsible for the pain therapy was the surgeon in 74% of the practices, the anesthesiologist in 16%, and both in 10%. The drugs used in the practice were: novaminsulfone (34%), NSAIDs (28%), and opioids (36%). The drugs used for at-home care were: NSAIDs (58%), opioids (43%), novaminsulfone (32%), and mixed analgesics (28%). No analgesics were given by 6%, and 21% prescribed a supplementary antiemetic. Routine pain measurement was performed with pain scales in only 11% of the practices; among the certified practices, 48% performed pain measurement for quality control. Ninety-five percent of the surgeons were satisfied with the pain therapy., Conclusion: This survey shows that the guidelines for acute pain therapy (http://www.awmf.de ) are only partially implemented.

Unlabelled: Obviously there is a world-wide trend towards regional analgesia for pain relief during delivery. Data on the current practice in Germany are lacking., Methods: In 1996 questionnaires on obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia were mailed to all university departments of anaesthesia., Results: All 38 university hospitals with obstetric units replied (100%). Mean annual delivery rate was 1156. Epidural analgesia (EA) (n = 22), intramuscular injection of opioids (n = 18), and non-opioids as a suppository (n = 17) were often used for pain relief during labour. Intravenous injections (n = 12) or pudendus anaesthesia (n = 7) were practised as well. Entonox (N2O/O2), paracervical blocks or transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS) was rarely used. EA for relief of labour pain was offered in all university hospitals. Twelve of them had an epidural rate of less than 10%, in nine the rate was 10-19%, in eight hospitals 20-29% and 30% or more in nine. Indication for EA was a demand by the parturient (n = 34), by the obstetrician (n = 26) or the midwife (n = 18), predominantly because of prolonged labour (n = 32) or significant pain (n = 21). Half of the university departments used an epidural combination of local anaesthetics (bupivacaine) and opioids (sufentanil (n = 12) and/or fentanyl (n = 9)). In all but one department the application of an epidural catheter was performed by anaesthesiologists exclusively. In some hospitals obstetricians (n = 10) or midwives (n = 4) were allowed to give epidural top-up injections. Of the 38 university departments 11 had an anaesthesiologists on duty 24 h a day responsible for the obstetric unit exclusively., Conclusion: In 1977, 14 of 18 university departments of anaesthesiology offered epidural analgesia for parturients. This option was available in all university departments in 1996. A mean rate of 10-20% epidurals for vaginal delivery is well within the limits reported from other countries, whereas the rate of regional anaesthesia for scheduled caesarean section (40%) still is rather low in Germany, as reported in part 1 of this survey (Anaesthesist 1998;47:59-63).

Unlabelled: Obviously there is a world-wide trend towards regional anaesthesia for caesarean section (CS). Data on the current practice in Germany are lacking., Methods: In 1996 questionnaires on obstetric anaesthesia were mailed to all University departments of anaesthesia., Results: All 38 University Hospitals with obstetric units replied (100%). Mean annual delivery rate was 1156 with a mean CS-rate of 24%. For scheduled CS the University departments used general anaesthesia in most cases (60%), followed by epidural (31%) and spinal anaesthesia (9%). General anaesthesia was predominantly used for more urgent (87%) or emergency deliveries (99%). Spinal anaesthesia was offered to patients as an option of anaesthesia for CS in 16 of 38 departments, epidural anaesthesia in 36 of 38. The majority of university hospitals (22 of 38) performed more than 25% of their CS in epidural anaesthesia; 14 departments had a ratio of at least 50% of regional anaesthesia. 28 of 32 centres administered some kind of acid aspiration chemoprophylaxis as a routine management. Special devices for the management of a difficult airway were provided in 61% of the hospitals within the delivery unit. In 70% the anaesthesiologist was responsible for the postoperative pain management following CS., Conclusion: A significant trend towards regional anaesthesia for CS has taken place in German university hospitals: According to a former survey regional anaesthesia was used in less than 10% of CS in 1977, whereas in the current evaluation from 1996 this figure was significantly higher (40%). Nevertheless, compared to other countries the rate of general anaesthesia still is rather high.