scholarly journals Waiting in Pain II: An Updated Review of the Provision of Persistent Pain Services in Australia

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm N Hogg ◽  
Anthony Kavanagh ◽  
Michael J Farrell ◽  
Anne L J Burke

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.

Pain Medicine ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1221-1237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne L. J. Burke ◽  
Linley A. Denson ◽  
Jane L. Mathias ◽  
Malcolm N. Hogg

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Bernabé-Ortiz ◽  
Jessica H. Zafra-Tanaka ◽  
Miguel Moscoso-Porras ◽  
Rangarajan Sampath ◽  
Beatrice Vetter ◽  
...  

AbstractA key component of any health system is the capacity to accurately diagnose individuals. One of the six building blocks of a health system as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) includes diagnostic tools. The WHO’s Noncommunicable Disease Global Action Plan includes addressing the lack of diagnostics for noncommunicable diseases, through multi-stakeholder collaborations to develop new technologies that are affordable, safe, effective and quality controlled, and improving laboratory and diagnostic capacity and human resources. Many challenges exist beyond price and availability for the current tools included in the Package of Essential Noncommunicable Disease Interventions (PEN) for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases. These include temperature stability, adaptability to various settings (e.g. at high altitude), need for training in order to perform and interpret the test, the need for maintenance and calibration, and for Blood Glucose Meters non-compatible meters and test strips. To date the issues surrounding access to diagnostic and monitoring tools for noncommunicable diseases have not been addressed in much detail. The aim of this Commentary is to present the current landscape and challenges with regards to guidance from the WHO on diagnostic tools using the WHO REASSURED criteria, which define a set of key characteristics for diagnostic tests and tools. These criteria have been used for communicable diseases, but so far have not been used for noncommunicable diseases. Diagnostic tools have played an important role in addressing many communicable diseases, such as HIV, TB and neglected tropical diseases. Clearly more attention with regards to diagnostics for noncommunicable diseases as a key component of the health system is needed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 204946372110230
Author(s):  
Gregory Booth ◽  
Deborah Williams ◽  
Hasina Patel ◽  
Anthony W Gilbert

Introduction: Virtual consultations (VC) have been embraced by healthcare organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. VC allows continuation of patient care while adhering to government advised restrictions and social distancing measures. Multidisciplinary pain management programmes (PMPs) are a core element of many pain services and utilising virtual methods to deliver PMPs has allowed them to continue to provide care. This systematic review aimed to explore the content of existing virtually delivered PMPs and discuss if and how these findings can be used to guide clinical delivery. Methods: Eligible studies included adults (aged ⩾18 years) with persistent musculoskeletal pain and any virtually delivered intervention that was described as a PMP or that had components of PMPs. Databases were searched from inception until July 2020. We performed a content analysis comparing existing interventions with established evidence-based clinical guidelines published by the British Pain Society (BPS). Intervention reporting quality was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist: an established checklist developed to improve the completeness of the reporting of interventions. Results: Eight studies were included. One intervention included six of the seven components recommended by the BPS; none included all seven. ‘Skills training and activity management’ was present in all eight interventions; ‘education’ and ‘cognitive therapy methods’ were present in six interventions; ‘graded activation’ and ‘methods to enhance acceptance, mindfulness and psychological flexibility’ were present in four interventions; ‘physical exercise’ was present in two interventions and ‘graded exposure’ was present in one intervention. None of the studies described all 12 items of the TIDieR checklist adequately enough for replication. Conclusion: Published virtual PMPs partially meet established clinical guidelines. Future virtual PMPs should be based on evidence-based clinical guidelines, and more research is needed to explore the effectiveness of virtually delivered PMPs and each recommended component.


2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
Felicity C. Veal ◽  
Angus J. Thompson ◽  
Luke R. Bereznicki ◽  
Gregory M. Peterson

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jackie Walumbe ◽  
Joletta Belton ◽  
Diarmuid Denneny

AbstractObjectivesDuring the current COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare has been transformed by the rapid switch from in person care to use of remote consulting, including video conferencing technology. Whilst much has been published on one-to-one video consultations, little literature exists on use of this technology to facilitate group interventions. Group pain management programmes are a core treatment provided by many pain services. This rapid review aimed to identify the extent of use of video conferencing technology for delivery of group pain management programmes and provide an overview of its use.MethodsA rapid review of the literature published up to April 2020 (PubMed, PsycINFO and PEDro) was performed. The search string consisted of three domains: pain/CP (MeSH term) AND Peer group[MeSH] AND Videoconferencing[MeSH]/Telemedicine[MeSH]/Remote Consultation[MeSH]. The studies were of poor methodological quality and study design, and interventions and chronic pain conditions were varied.ResultsLiterature searching yielded three eligible papers for this review. All studies had low methodological quality and risk of bias. Heterogeneity and variability in outcome reporting did not allow any pooling of data. The results demonstrated that videoconferencing for delivery of group programmes is possible, yet there is little extant literature on how to develop, deliver and measure outcomes of such programmes.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that there is little evidence to support or guide the use of synchronous videoconferencing to deliver pain management programmes. We present issues to consider, informed by this review and our experience, when implementing video conferencing. Study quality of existing work is variable, and extensive future research is necessary.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Rodham

Although there has been a drive toward pain self-management, self-management has not yet in my opinion been successfully defined or evaluated and neither has it been consistently translated from idea to practice. In this perspective article, I identify gaps in our approach to pain management and argue that even though we know life context plays a huge role in influencing our health, by and large we fail to take this into account. I argue for a shift in focus away from the ‘self’ and explore how we might be able to do this within the constraints of our tired and over-stretched health system.


2020 ◽  
Vol 231 (3) ◽  
pp. 316-324.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven H. Mitchell ◽  
Eileen M. Bulger ◽  
Herbert C. Duber ◽  
Alexander L. Greninger ◽  
Thuan D. Ong ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document