Lucie D Knight1, Beth J Guildford1, Aisling Daly-Eichenhardt1, Lance M McCracken1,2. 1. INPUT Pain Management Unit, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. 2. Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The present study audited the process of assessing and selecting patients for a pain management programme with the aim of reviewing best practice in the light of the latest British Pain Society guidelines for pain management programmes for adults. The guidelines include defined inclusion/exclusion criteria and it was explored how they are used by clinicians providing a pain management service. METHOD: The records of 200 consecutive patients who attended a multidisciplinary assessment for a central London specialist Pain Management Service from September 2014 to December 2014 were audited. The proportions of patients who were offered a programme, were discharged or referred for a different service were calculated. Clinic letters were reviewed to collect information on assessment outcomes, recommendations and inclusion/exclusion criteria used. RESULTS: About half the patients (53%) seen for assessment were offered treatment within the service, most frequently the intensive residential programme (30.5%, with an additional 11.6% offered case management first), followed by the five session outpatient programme (8.1%) and a minority was offered individual treatment (2.5%); 44.7% of the patients were discharged following the assessment. The three most frequently used reasons for exclusion were: not ready to engage with the pain management approach (35%), complex psychological or other needs needing to be prioritised (29.5%) and the patient declining a programme (19.3%). CONCLUSION: Reviewing the use of inclusion/exclusion criteria revealed some challenges regarding patient selection. For example, a sizable proportion of patients were still seeking pain reduction and were not open to a self-management approach when this was the recommended treatment for them. Complex patients might need other treatment approaches before they can be considered for a programme. Having a range of pain management options of varying intensities available seems helpful in meeting individual patient need.
INTRODUCTION: The present study audited the process of assessing and selecting patients for a pain management programme with the aim of reviewing best practice in the light of the latest British Pain Society guidelines for pain management programmes for adults. The guidelines include defined inclusion/exclusion criteria and it was explored how they are used by clinicians providing a pain management service. METHOD: The records of 200 consecutive patients who attended a multidisciplinary assessment for a central London specialist Pain Management Service from September 2014 to December 2014 were audited. The proportions of patients who were offered a programme, were discharged or referred for a different service were calculated. Clinic letters were reviewed to collect information on assessment outcomes, recommendations and inclusion/exclusion criteria used. RESULTS: About half the patients (53%) seen for assessment were offered treatment within the service, most frequently the intensive residential programme (30.5%, with an additional 11.6% offered case management first), followed by the five session outpatient programme (8.1%) and a minority was offered individual treatment (2.5%); 44.7% of the patients were discharged following the assessment. The three most frequently used reasons for exclusion were: not ready to engage with the pain management approach (35%), complex psychological or other needs needing to be prioritised (29.5%) and the patient declining a programme (19.3%). CONCLUSION: Reviewing the use of inclusion/exclusion criteria revealed some challenges regarding patient selection. For example, a sizable proportion of patients were still seeking pain reduction and were not open to a self-management approach when this was the recommended treatment for them. Complex patients might need other treatment approaches before they can be considered for a programme. Having a range of pain management options of varying intensities available seems helpful in meeting individual patient need.
Authors: Michael K Nicholas; Ali Asghari; Fiona M Blyth; Bradley M Wood; Robin Murray; Rebecca McCabe; Alan Brnabic; Lee Beeston; Mandy Corbett; Catherine Sherrington; Sarah Overton Journal: Pain Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Christopher Eccleston; Emma Fisher; Lorraine Craig; Geoffrey B Duggan; Benjamin A Rosser; Edmund Keogh Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-02-26
Authors: Dana C Nevedal; Chun Wang; Lindsay Oberleitner; Steven Schwartz; Amy M Williams Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Juliana Onwumere; Brendon Stubbs; Mary Stirling; David Shiers; Fiona Gaughran; Andrew S C Rice; Amanda C de C Williams; Whitney Scott Journal: Pain Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 7.926