AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper reports a review of the literature conducted to identify organisation models in cancer pain management that contain integrated care processes and describe their effectiveness. BACKGROUND: Pain is experienced by 30-50% of cancer patients receiving treatment and by 70-90% of those with advanced disease. Efforts to improve pain management have been made through the development and dissemination of clinical guidelines. Early improvements in pain management were focussed on just one or two single processes such as pain assessment and patient education. Little is known about organisational models with multiple integrated processes throughout the course of the disease trajectory and concerning all stages of the care process. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: The review involved a systematic search of the literature, published between 1986-2006. Subject-specific keywords used to describe patients, disease, pain management interventions and integrated care processes, relevant for this review were selected using the thesaurus of the databases. CONCLUSION: Institutional models, clinical pathways and consultation services are three alternative models for the integration of care processes in cancer pain management. A clinical pathway is a comprehensive institutionalisation model, whereas a pain consultation service is a 'stand-alone' model that can be integrated in a clinical pathway. Positive patient and process outcomes have been described for all three models, although the level of evidence is generally low. Evaluation of the quality of pain management must involve standardised measurements of both patient and process outcomes. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: We recommend the development of policies for referrals to a pain consultation service. These policies can be integrated within a clinical pathway. To evaluate the effectiveness of pain management models standardised outcome measures are needed.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper reports a review of the literature conducted to identify organisation models in cancer pain management that contain integrated care processes and describe their effectiveness. BACKGROUND:Pain is experienced by 30-50% of cancerpatients receiving treatment and by 70-90% of those with advanced disease. Efforts to improve pain management have been made through the development and dissemination of clinical guidelines. Early improvements in pain management were focussed on just one or two single processes such as pain assessment and patient education. Little is known about organisational models with multiple integrated processes throughout the course of the disease trajectory and concerning all stages of the care process. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: The review involved a systematic search of the literature, published between 1986-2006. Subject-specific keywords used to describe patients, disease, pain management interventions and integrated care processes, relevant for this review were selected using the thesaurus of the databases. CONCLUSION: Institutional models, clinical pathways and consultation services are three alternative models for the integration of care processes in cancer pain management. A clinical pathway is a comprehensive institutionalisation model, whereas a pain consultation service is a 'stand-alone' model that can be integrated in a clinical pathway. Positive patient and process outcomes have been described for all three models, although the level of evidence is generally low. Evaluation of the quality of pain management must involve standardised measurements of both patient and process outcomes. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: We recommend the development of policies for referrals to a pain consultation service. These policies can be integrated within a clinical pathway. To evaluate the effectiveness of pain management models standardised outcome measures are needed.
Authors: Fuusje M de Graaff; Anneke L Francke; Maria Etc van den Muijsenbergh; Sjaak van der Geest Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2010-09-10 Impact factor: 3.234
Authors: Kathryn A Martinez; Rebecca A Aslakson; Renee F Wilson; Colleen C Apostol; Oluwakemi A Fawole; Brandyn D Lau; Daniela Vollenweider; Eric B Bass; Sydney M Dy Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Mary E Cooley; Traci M Blonquist; Paul J Catalano; David F Lobach; Barbara Halpenny; Ruth McCorkle; Ellis B Johns; Ilana M Braun; Michael S Rabin; Fatma Zohra Mataoui; Kathleen Finn; Donna L Berry; Janet L Abrahm Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: France Légaré; Dawn Stacey; Susie Gagnon; Sandy Dunn; Pierre Pluye; Dominick Frosch; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Glyn Elwyn; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Ian D Graham Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2010-08-03 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Tim Luckett; Jane Phillips; Meera Agar; Lawrence Lam; Patricia M Davidson; Nicola McCaffrey; Frances Boyle; Tim Shaw; David C Currow; Alison Read; Annmarie Hosie; Melanie Lovell Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 2.655