An updated audit of the patient selection process for pain management programmes in a speciality care service before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

IF 1.3 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY British Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1177/20494637221147200
Valentina Buscemi, Joe Chicken, Tim Mahy, Lucie Knight, Whitney Scott
{"title":"An updated audit of the patient selection process for pain management programmes in a speciality care service before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Valentina Buscemi,&nbsp;Joe Chicken,&nbsp;Tim Mahy,&nbsp;Lucie Knight,&nbsp;Whitney Scott","doi":"10.1177/20494637221147200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The provision of pain management programmes (PMPs) changed substantially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with virtual delivery implemented in many services. Little is known about patient selection processes for virtual PMPs and how this might differ from in-person programmes. The aim of this audit was to document the patient selection process for PMPs at a speciality pain service prior to and during the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective audit used data from consecutive patients attending a multidisciplinary assessment to determine the suitability of a PMP. Anonymized data were extracted from assessment letters and hospital records in the months prior to the pandemic (n =168) and during the start of the pandemic once the service began delivering virtual PMPs (n =171).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the standard pain management pathway, most patients were offered a PMP option within the service before and during the pandemic, although a greater proportion of patients were offered treatment during the pandemic. For the neuromodulation pathway, most patients were offered a pre-neuromodulation PMP option, and this was similar before and during the pandemic. Psychosocial complexities and unwillingness to engage in a pain management approach that does not principally focus on pain reduction were the most common reasons that patients were not offered a programme.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This audit points to a pattern of more inclusive assessment outcomes within our service over time and particularly during the pandemic. Offering a range of in-person and virtual PMPs can meet a wider range of patient need. Research is needed to understand how to best assess and match patients with the breadth of treatment delivery formats now available.</p>","PeriodicalId":46585,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9791070/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20494637221147200","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: The provision of pain management programmes (PMPs) changed substantially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with virtual delivery implemented in many services. Little is known about patient selection processes for virtual PMPs and how this might differ from in-person programmes. The aim of this audit was to document the patient selection process for PMPs at a speciality pain service prior to and during the pandemic.

Methods: This retrospective audit used data from consecutive patients attending a multidisciplinary assessment to determine the suitability of a PMP. Anonymized data were extracted from assessment letters and hospital records in the months prior to the pandemic (n =168) and during the start of the pandemic once the service began delivering virtual PMPs (n =171).

Results: For the standard pain management pathway, most patients were offered a PMP option within the service before and during the pandemic, although a greater proportion of patients were offered treatment during the pandemic. For the neuromodulation pathway, most patients were offered a pre-neuromodulation PMP option, and this was similar before and during the pandemic. Psychosocial complexities and unwillingness to engage in a pain management approach that does not principally focus on pain reduction were the most common reasons that patients were not offered a programme.

Discussion: This audit points to a pattern of more inclusive assessment outcomes within our service over time and particularly during the pandemic. Offering a range of in-person and virtual PMPs can meet a wider range of patient need. Research is needed to understand how to best assess and match patients with the breadth of treatment delivery formats now available.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在COVID-19大流行之前和期间对专科护理服务中疼痛管理规划的患者选择过程进行的最新审计。
背景:为应对COVID-19大流行,疼痛管理规划(pmp)的提供发生了重大变化,许多服务实施了虚拟交付。人们对虚拟pmp的患者选择过程知之甚少,也不知道这与面对面的项目有何不同。这次审计的目的是记录在大流行之前和期间在专业疼痛服务中选择pmp患者的过程。方法:回顾性审计使用了参加多学科评估的连续患者的数据,以确定PMP的适用性。从大流行前几个月(n =168)和大流行开始期间(n =171)的评估信和医院记录中提取匿名数据。结果:对于标准疼痛管理途径,在大流行之前和期间,大多数患者在服务中提供了PMP选项,尽管在大流行期间提供了更大比例的患者治疗。对于神经调节途径,大多数患者接受了神经调节前的PMP选择,这在大流行之前和期间是相似的。心理社会复杂性和不愿意参与疼痛管理方法,而不是主要侧重于减轻疼痛是患者没有提供方案的最常见原因。讨论:这次审计表明,随着时间的推移,特别是在大流行期间,我们的服务部门的评估结果更具包容性。提供一系列面对面和虚拟的pmp可以满足更广泛的患者需求。需要进行研究,以了解如何最好地评估和匹配患者与目前可用的治疗提供形式的广度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
British Journal of Pain
British Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: British Journal of Pain is a peer-reviewed quarterly British journal with an international multidisciplinary Editorial Board. The journal publishes original research and reviews on all major aspects of pain and pain management. Reviews reflect the body of evidence of the topic and are suitable for a multidisciplinary readership. Where empirical evidence is lacking, the reviews reflect the generally held opinions of experts in the field. The Journal has broadened its scope and has become a forum for publishing primary research together with brief reports related to pain and pain interventions. Submissions from all over the world have been published and are welcome. Official journal of the British Pain Society.
期刊最新文献
What influences post-operative opioid requirements for tibial fractures? Botulinum toxin: Should we reconsider its place in the treatment of neuropathic pain? Experience of compassion-based practice in mindfulness for health for individuals with persistent pain. Prehabilitation: The underutilised weapon for chronic pain management. The interaction between psychological factors and conditioned pain modulation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1