The Perioperative Pain Management Bundle is Feasible: Findings From the PAIN OUT Registry.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Clinical Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1097/AJP.0000000000001153
Dusica Stamenkovic, Philipp Baumbach, Dragana Radovanovic, Milos Novovic, Nebojsa Ladjevic, Emilija Dubljanin Raspopovic, Ivan Palibrk, Dragana Unic-Stojanovic, Aleksandra Jukic, Radmilo Jankovic, Suzana Bojic, Jasna Gacic, Ulrike M Stamer, Winfried Meissner, Ruth Zaslansky
{"title":"The Perioperative Pain Management Bundle is Feasible: Findings From the PAIN OUT Registry.","authors":"Dusica Stamenkovic,&nbsp;Philipp Baumbach,&nbsp;Dragana Radovanovic,&nbsp;Milos Novovic,&nbsp;Nebojsa Ladjevic,&nbsp;Emilija Dubljanin Raspopovic,&nbsp;Ivan Palibrk,&nbsp;Dragana Unic-Stojanovic,&nbsp;Aleksandra Jukic,&nbsp;Radmilo Jankovic,&nbsp;Suzana Bojic,&nbsp;Jasna Gacic,&nbsp;Ulrike M Stamer,&nbsp;Winfried Meissner,&nbsp;Ruth Zaslansky","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The quality of postoperative pain management is often poor. A \"bundle,\" a small set of evidence-based interventions, is associated with improved outcomes in different settings. We assessed whether staff caring for surgical patients could implement a \"Perioperative Pain Management Bundle\" and whether this would be associated with improved multidimensional pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>\"PAIN OUT,\" a perioperative pain registry, offers tools for auditing pain-related PROs and obtaining information about perioperative pain management during the first 24 hours after surgery. Staff from 10 hospitals in Serbia used this methodology to collect data at baseline. They then implemented the \"Perioperative Pain Management Bundle\" into the clinical routine and collected another round of data. The bundle consists of 4 treatment elements: (1) a full daily dose of 1 to 2 nonopioid analgesics (eg, paracetamol and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), (2) at least 1 type of local/regional anesthesia, (3) pain assessment by staff, and (4) offering patients information about pain management. The primary endpoint was a multidimensional pain composite score (PCS), evaluating pain intensity, interference, and side effects that was compared between patients who received the full bundle versus not.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Implementation of the complete bundle was associated with a significant reduction in the PCS ( P < 0.001, small-medium effect size [ES]). When each treatment element was evaluated independently, nonopioid analgesics were associated with a higher PCS (ie, poorer outcome, and negligible ES), and the other elements were associated with a lower PCS (all negligible small ES). Individual PROs were consistently better in patients receiving the full bundle compared with 0 to 3 elements. The PCS was not associated with the surgical discipline.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We report findings from using a bundle approach for perioperative pain management in patients undergoing mixed surgical procedures. Future work will seek strategies to improve the effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001153","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objectives: The quality of postoperative pain management is often poor. A "bundle," a small set of evidence-based interventions, is associated with improved outcomes in different settings. We assessed whether staff caring for surgical patients could implement a "Perioperative Pain Management Bundle" and whether this would be associated with improved multidimensional pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Methods: "PAIN OUT," a perioperative pain registry, offers tools for auditing pain-related PROs and obtaining information about perioperative pain management during the first 24 hours after surgery. Staff from 10 hospitals in Serbia used this methodology to collect data at baseline. They then implemented the "Perioperative Pain Management Bundle" into the clinical routine and collected another round of data. The bundle consists of 4 treatment elements: (1) a full daily dose of 1 to 2 nonopioid analgesics (eg, paracetamol and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), (2) at least 1 type of local/regional anesthesia, (3) pain assessment by staff, and (4) offering patients information about pain management. The primary endpoint was a multidimensional pain composite score (PCS), evaluating pain intensity, interference, and side effects that was compared between patients who received the full bundle versus not.

Results: Implementation of the complete bundle was associated with a significant reduction in the PCS ( P < 0.001, small-medium effect size [ES]). When each treatment element was evaluated independently, nonopioid analgesics were associated with a higher PCS (ie, poorer outcome, and negligible ES), and the other elements were associated with a lower PCS (all negligible small ES). Individual PROs were consistently better in patients receiving the full bundle compared with 0 to 3 elements. The PCS was not associated with the surgical discipline.

Discussion: We report findings from using a bundle approach for perioperative pain management in patients undergoing mixed surgical procedures. Future work will seek strategies to improve the effect.

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
围手术期疼痛管理包是可行的:疼痛登记的结果。
目的:术后疼痛管理的质量通常很差。“捆绑”是一小组循证干预措施,与不同环境下的改善结果有关。我们评估了护理外科患者的工作人员是否可以实施“围手术期疼痛管理捆绑包”,以及这是否与改善多维疼痛相关患者报告的结果(PROs)有关,提供了用于审核疼痛相关PROs和获取手术后前24小时围手术期疼痛管理信息的工具。塞尔维亚10家医院的工作人员使用这种方法在基线时收集数据。然后,他们将“围手术期疼痛管理包”纳入临床常规,并收集了另一轮数据。该捆绑包由4个治疗元素组成:(1)每天全剂量的1至2种非鸦片类止痛药(如扑热息痛和/或非甾体抗炎药),(2)至少一种局部/区域麻醉,(3)工作人员的疼痛评估,以及(4)向患者提供疼痛管理信息。主要终点是多维疼痛综合评分(PCS),评估疼痛强度、干扰和副作用,并在接受全捆绑治疗与未接受全捆绑的患者之间进行比较。结果:完全束的实施与PCS的显著减少有关(P<0.001,中小效应大小[ES])。当对每个治疗因素进行独立评估时,非鸦片类镇痛药与较高的PCS相关(即较差的结果和可忽略的ES),而其他因素与较低的PCS有关(所有可忽略的小ES)。与0至3个元素相比,接受全束治疗的患者的个体PROs始终更好。PCS与外科学科无关。讨论:我们报告了在接受混合手术的患者中使用捆绑方法进行围手术期疼痛管理的结果。未来的工作将寻求提高效果的策略。
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
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
期刊最新文献
Application of the IASP Grading System to Identify Underlying Pain Mechanisms in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Cohort Study. Retrospective Analysis of Fibromyalgia: Exploring the Interplay Between Various Triggers and Fibromyalgia's Severity. Genicular Nerve Block for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Is Social Support Associated With Clinical Outcomes in Adults With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review. Narrative Accounts of Youth and Their Mothers With Chronic Headache: Application of a Socio-narratology Framework to Pain Narratives.
×
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