Cathy Price1, Amanda C de C Williams2, Blair H Smith3, Alex Bottle4. 1. Solent NHS Trust, Southampton, UK. 2. Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK. 3. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. 4. Dr Foster Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Numerous reports highlight variations in pain clinic provision between services, particularly in the provision of multidisciplinary services and length of waiting times. A National Audit aims to identify and quantify these variations, to facilitate raising standards of care in identified areas of need. This article describes a Quality Improvement Programme cycle covering England and Wales that used such an approach to remedy the paucity of data on the current state of UK pain clinics. METHODS: Clinics were audited over a 4-year period using standards developed by the Faculty of Pain Medicine of The Royal College of Anaesthetists. Reporting was according to guidance from a recent systematic review of national surveys of pain clinics. A range of quality improvement measures was introduced via a series of roadshows led by the British Pain Society. RESULTS: 94% of clinics responded to the first audit and 83% responded to the second. Per annum, 0.4% of the total national population was estimated to attend a specialist pain service. A significant improvement in multidisciplinary staffing was found (35-56%, p < 0.001) over the 4-year audit programme, although this still requires improvement. Very few clinics achieved recommended evidence-based waiting times, although only 2.5% fell outside government targets; this did not improve. Safety standards were generally met. Clinicians often failed to code diagnoses. CONCLUSION: A National Audit found that while generally safe many specialist pain services in England and Wales fell below recommended standards of care. Waiting times and staffing require improvement if patients are to get effective and timely care. Diagnostic coding also requires improvement.
INTRODUCTION: Numerous reports highlight variations in pain clinic provision between services, particularly in the provision of multidisciplinary services and length of waiting times. A National Audit aims to identify and quantify these variations, to facilitate raising standards of care in identified areas of need. This article describes a Quality Improvement Programme cycle covering England and Wales that used such an approach to remedy the paucity of data on the current state of UK pain clinics. METHODS: Clinics were audited over a 4-year period using standards developed by the Faculty of Pain Medicine of The Royal College of Anaesthetists. Reporting was according to guidance from a recent systematic review of national surveys of pain clinics. A range of quality improvement measures was introduced via a series of roadshows led by the British Pain Society. RESULTS: 94% of clinics responded to the first audit and 83% responded to the second. Per annum, 0.4% of the total national population was estimated to attend a specialist pain service. A significant improvement in multidisciplinary staffing was found (35-56%, p < 0.001) over the 4-year audit programme, although this still requires improvement. Very few clinics achieved recommended evidence-based waiting times, although only 2.5% fell outside government targets; this did not improve. Safety standards were generally met. Clinicians often failed to code diagnoses. CONCLUSION: A National Audit found that while generally safe many specialist pain services in England and Wales fell below recommended standards of care. Waiting times and staffing require improvement if patients are to get effective and timely care. Diagnostic coding also requires improvement.
Authors: Charles S Cleeland; Cielito C Reyes-Gibby; Marie Schall; Kevin Nolan; Judith Paice; Jack M Rosenberg; Jane H Tollett; Robert D Kerns Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Mary E Lynch; Fiona Campbell; Alexander J Clark; Michael J Dunbar; David Goldstein; Philip Peng; Jennifer Stinson; Helen Tupper Journal: Pain Date: 2007-08-17 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Rolf-Detlef Treede; Winfried Rief; Antonia Barke; Qasim Aziz; Michael I Bennett; Rafael Benoliel; Milton Cohen; Stefan Evers; Nanna B Finnerup; Michael B First; Maria Adele Giamberardino; Stein Kaasa; Eva Kosek; Patricia Lavand'homme; Michael Nicholas; Serge Perrot; Joachim Scholz; Stephan Schug; Blair H Smith; Peter Svensson; Johan W S Vlaeyen; Shuu-Jiun Wang Journal: Pain Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Greg Ogrinc; Louise Davies; Daisy Goodman; Paul Batalden; Frank Davidoff; David Stevens Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 7.035