In a pandemic that limits contact, can videoconferencing enable interdisciplinary persistent pain services and what are the patient's perspectives?

Abstract Objective To provide an update on Australian persistent pain services (number, structure, funding, wait times, activity). Methods An updated national search was conducted. Of those identified, 74 persistent pain services provided detailed responses between July 2016 and February 2018 (64 adult, seven pediatric, two pelvic pain, and one cancer pain). A similar structure to the original Waiting in Pain (WIP) survey was used, and participants chose online or telephone completion. Results Pediatric pain services had more than doubled but remained limited. Adult services had also increased, with a concurrent decrease in median wait times and an increase in the number of new referrals seen each year. Despite this, some lengthy wait times (≥3 years) persisted. Wait times were longest at clinics using public or combined funding models and offering pain management group programs (PMGPs). Although clinical activity had increased, medical staffing had not, suggesting that clinics were operating differently. Privately funded clinics performed more procedures than publicly funded services. Use of PMGPs had increased, but program structure remained diverse. Conclusions Specialist pain services have expanded since the original WIP survey, facilitating treatment access for many. However, wait time range suggested that the most disadvantaged individuals still experienced the longest wait times, often far exceeding the recommended 6-month maximum wait. More needs to be done. Numerous developments (e.g., National Strategic Action Plan for Pain Management, health system changes as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic) will continue to influence the delivery of pain services in Australia, and repeated analysis of service structures and wait times will optimize our health system response to the management of this condition.

Download Full-text

Quick Reference: Chapter 1: The Musculoskeletal System: The Hand and Upper Extremity

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2000.sepoct03 ◽

2000 ◽

Vol 5 (5) ◽

pp. 4-5

Keyword(s):

Dorsal Column ◽

Persistent Pain ◽

Illness Behavior ◽

Abnormal Illness Behavior ◽

Organ Systems ◽

Spinal Cord Dorsal ◽

Objective Basis ◽

Dorsal Column Stimulation ◽

Underlying Pathology

Abstract Spinal cord (dorsal column) stimulation (SCS) and intraspinal opioids (ISO) are treatments for patients in whom abnormal illness behavior is absent but who have an objective basis for severe, persistent pain that has not been adequately relieved by other interventions. Usually, physicians prescribe these treatments in cancer pain or noncancer-related neuropathic pain settings. A survey of academic centers showed that 87% of responding centers use SCS and 84% use ISO. These treatments are performed frequently in nonacademic settings, so evaluators likely will encounter patients who were treated with SCS and ISO. Does SCS or ISO change the impairment associated with the underlying conditions for which these treatments are performed? Although the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) does not specifically address this question, the answer follows directly from the principles on which the AMA Guides impairment rating methodology is based. Specifically, “the impairment percents shown in the chapters that consider the various organ systems make allowance for the pain that may accompany the impairing condition.” Thus, impairment is neither increased due to persistent pain nor is it decreased in the absence of pain. In summary, in the absence of complications, the evaluator should rate the underlying pathology or injury without making an adjustment in the impairment for SCS or ISO.

Download Full-text