Pain Management: Texas Legislative and Regulatory Update

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 328-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Ralston

My purpose is to provide an update on recent Texas regulatory and statutory changes adopted , since the passage in Texas of the Intractable Pain Treatment Act in 1989 (Pain Act) (see Table l). First, I describe the rules adopted by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners (TSBME) that authorize physicians to prescribe opioids for the treatment of pain (Pain Rules) (see Table 2). Second, I detail recent statutory changes that pertain to education of physicians and medical students about pain treatment. All of these changes attempt to create a better legal environment for the treatment of chronic pain in Texas.Before describing the Pain Rules adopted in Texas, the question Why adopt rules, rather than simply ask TSBME to issue a policy statement? must be answered. Many states, most notably California, have issued policy statements that clarify for physicians the parameters within which they may treat pain? Policy statements, unlike administrative regulations, do not have the force of law.

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (9) ◽  
pp. 533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kacper Lechowicz ◽  
Igor Karolak ◽  
Sylwester Drożdżal ◽  
Maciej Żukowski ◽  
Aleksandra Szylińska ◽  
...  

Background and objectives: Adequate pain management is a major challenge of public health. The majority of students graduating from medical schools has insufficient education and experience with patients suffering pain. Not enough is being taught regarding pain in non-verbal patients (children, critically ill in the intensive care unit, demented). Chronic pain is the most difficult to optimize and requires appropriate preparation at the level of medical school. Our aim was to evaluate attitudes, expectations and the actual knowledge of medical students at different levels of their career path regarding the assessment and treatment of acute and chronic pain. Materials and Methods: We performed an observational cross-sectional study that was based on a survey distributed among medical students of pre-clinical and post-clinical years at the Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin, Poland. The survey included: demographic data, number of hours of formal pain teaching, actual knowledge of pain assessment, and pain treatment options in adults and children. Results: We received responses from 77/364 (21.15%) students and 79.2% of them rated the need to obtain knowledge regarding pain as very important (10/10 points). Post-clinical group declared having on average 11.51 h of acute pain teaching as compared to the 7.4 h reported by the pre-clinical group (p = 0.012). Graduating students also reported having significantly more classes regarding the treatment of chronic pain (6.08 h vs. 3.79 h, p = 0.007). The average level of comfort in the post-clinical group regarding treatment of acute pain was higher than in the pre-clinical group (6.05 vs. 4.26, p = 0.006), similarly with chronic pain treatment in adults (4.33 vs. 2.97, p = 0.021) and with pain treatment in children (3.14 vs. 1.97, p = 0.026). Conclusions: This study shows that education about pain management is a priority to medical students. Despite this, there continues to be a discrepancy between students’ expectations and the actual teaching and knowledge regarding effective pain management, including the vulnerable groups: chronic pain patients, children, and critically ill people.


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Rankin ◽  
Christopher John Fowler ◽  
Britt-Marie Stålnacke ◽  
Gisselle Gallego

Background: Chronic pain education is an essential determinant for optimal chronic pain management. Given that attitudes and preferences are involved in making treatment decisions, identifying which factors are most influential to final year medical students’ and general practitioners’ (GPs) chronic pain management choices is of importance. This study investigates Swedish and Australian students’ preferences with respect to a chronic pain condition, using a best–worst scaling (BWS) experiment, which is designed to rank alternatives. Methods: BWS, a stated-preference method grounded in random utility theory, was used to explore the importance of factors influencing chronic pain management. Results: All three cohorts considered the patients’ pain description and previous treatment experience as the most important factors in making treatment decisions, whereas their demographics and voices or facial expressions while describing their pain were considered least important. Factors such as social support, patient preferences and treatment adherence were, however, disregarded by all cohorts in favour of pain assessment factors such as pain ratings, description and history. Swedish medical students and GPs show very high correlation in their choices, although the GPs consider their professional experience as more important compared to the students. Conclusion: This study suggests that the relative importance of treatment factors is cemented early and thus underline the critical importance of improving pain curricula during undergraduate medical education.


Ból ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-49
Author(s):  
Magdalena Kocot-Kępska ◽  
Renata Zajączkowska ◽  
Jan Dobrogowski ◽  
Anna Przeklasa-Muszyńska

Understanding the neurobiological mechanisms underlying chronic pain syndromes is a significant progress in modern pain medicine. Understanding the basic differences between acute and chronic pain processes, learning about the mechanisms of transition from acute to chronic pain, allows us to change the approach to pain management from commonly used empirical approach to more rational mechanism-oriented pain treatment. In many patients with chronic pain, empiric therapy, which does not consider the mechanisms of pain, is not fully effective. Often, when planning pharmacotherapy, current knowledge about the pain etiology and mechanisms of pain chronification is not considered. Management based on already known mechanisms of pain, using rational pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological methods, may improve the quality and effectiveness of pain management.


2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-181
Author(s):  
W. Schmelling ◽  
J.N. Poulsen ◽  
L. Christrup ◽  
P. Gazerani

Abstract Aims A fast-track based surgical treatment reduces morbidity and hospital stay by providing early mobilization. Sufficient postoperative pain management is mandatory for early mobilization and optimal utilization of rehabilitation measures. Insufficient postoperative pain management is however a widespread problem. Lack of knowledge about pain and pain treatment among health care professionals and general community has been considered as a major potential contributor in insufficient pain management. It has been suggested that severe postoperative pain might imply a potential risk of developing chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to examine this problem in acute and elective surgical patients in department of orthopedic surgery at Bispebjerg Hospital in order to identify obstacles and possibilities for future improvement. Methods Questionnaires were developed and distributed to patients consisted of 10 acute admitted and 10 elective orthopedic patients. The patients’ pain scores were recorded with a 0–10 NRS scale. The scores were obtained for current pain in rest, current pain in activity, and the highest and lowest pain intensity for the last 24 hours. Data were handled using descriptive statistics. Results The goal for sufficient pain treatment was patients with pain score at ≤ 3 NRS at rest and ≤ 5 in activity. For pain at rest 45% of the patients were within the goal range and 55% for the current pain in activity. For the mildest pain experienced in the last 24 h, 75% and for the worst pain experienced 30% of the patients reached the goal. Conclusions Corresponding to similar studies, half of the patients received a sufficient pain treatment at the time of examination. The consequences for insufficient pain management would be reduced effect of the physiotherapy, reduced ability to handle every day activity, sleep disturbances, and potential risk of developing chronic pain.


10.2196/13170 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. e13170
Author(s):  
Alexandra Hoffmann ◽  
Corinna A Faust-Christmann ◽  
Gregor Zolynski ◽  
Gabriele Bleser

Background The use of health apps to support the treatment of chronic pain is gaining importance. Most available pain management apps are still lacking in content quality and quantity as their developers neither involve health experts to ensure target group suitability nor use gamification to engage and motivate the user. To close this gap, we aimed to develop a gamified pain management app, Pain-Mentor. Objective To determine whether medical professionals would approve of Pain-Mentor’s concept and content, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of the app’s first prototype with experts from the field of chronic pain management and to discover necessary improvements. Methods A total of 11 health professionals with a background in chronic pain treatment and 2 mobile health experts participated in this study. Each expert first received a detailed presentation of the app. Afterward, they tested Pain-Mentor and then rated its quality using the mobile application rating scale (MARS) in a semistructured interview. Results The experts found the app to be of excellent general (mean 4.54, SD 0.55) and subjective quality (mean 4.57, SD 0.43). The app-specific section was rated as good (mean 4.38, SD 0.75). Overall, the experts approved of the app’s content, namely, pain and stress management techniques, behavior change techniques, and gamification. They believed that the use of gamification in Pain-Mentor positively influences the patients’ motivation and engagement and thus has the potential to promote the learning of pain management techniques. Moreover, applying the MARS in a semistructured interview provided in-depth insight into the ratings and concrete suggestions for improvement. Conclusions The experts rated Pain-Mentor to be of excellent quality. It can be concluded that experts perceived the use of gamification in this pain management app in a positive manner. This showed that combining pain management with gamification did not negatively affect the app’s integrity. This study was therefore a promising first step in the development of Pain-Mentor.


2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Strasser ◽  
Paul Walker ◽  
Eduardo Bruera

Patients with advanced cancer frequently experience intractable pain without sufficient response to a conventional pharmacological approach. One reason for refractory pain at the end of life can be the bidirectional nature of pain and suffering. Three terminally ill patients were assessed using a multidimensional palliative pain concept, including sensory, affective, cognitive, and existential components. In these patients, resistant pain did not equal insufficient eradication of the nociceptive input, but also suffering. Unrelieved emotions, depressive or anxious symptoms, delirium, difficulties communicating, or chemical coping influenced the expression of pain, illuminating the phenomenon of somatization. Palliative pain treatment integrated analgesic treatments, psychological, rehabilitative, and existential interventions, in consideration of individual expectations and outcomes. With the disciplined assessment and alternative multidisciplinary palliative approach, the quality of life of three terminally ill cancer patients with intractable pain could be enhanced, and unnecessary interventions and escalation of medications avoided.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Hoffmann ◽  
Corinna A Faust-Christmann ◽  
Gregor Zolynski ◽  
Gabriele Bleser

BACKGROUND The use of health apps to support the treatment of chronic pain is gaining importance. Most available pain management apps are still lacking in content quality and quantity as their developers neither involve health experts to ensure target group suitability nor use gamification to engage and motivate the user. To close this gap, we aimed to develop a gamified pain management app, Pain-Mentor. OBJECTIVE To determine whether medical professionals would approve of Pain-Mentor’s concept and content, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of the app’s first prototype with experts from the field of chronic pain management and to discover necessary improvements. METHODS A total of 11 health professionals with a background in chronic pain treatment and 2 mobile health experts participated in this study. Each expert first received a detailed presentation of the app. Afterward, they tested Pain-Mentor and then rated its quality using the mobile application rating scale (MARS) in a semistructured interview. RESULTS The experts found the app to be of excellent general (mean 4.54, SD 0.55) and subjective quality (mean 4.57, SD 0.43). The app-specific section was rated as good (mean 4.38, SD 0.75). Overall, the experts approved of the app’s content, namely, pain and stress management techniques, behavior change techniques, and gamification. They believed that the use of gamification in Pain-Mentor positively influences the patients’ motivation and engagement and thus has the potential to promote the learning of pain management techniques. Moreover, applying the MARS in a semistructured interview provided in-depth insight into the ratings and concrete suggestions for improvement. CONCLUSIONS The experts rated Pain-Mentor to be of excellent quality. It can be concluded that experts perceived the use of gamification in this pain management app in a positive manner. This showed that combining pain management with gamification did not negatively affect the app’s integrity. This study was therefore a promising first step in the development of Pain-Mentor. CLINICALTRIAL


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarina R. Isenberg, MA ◽  
Allysha C. Maragh-Bass, MPH, PhD ◽  
Kathleen Ridgeway, MSPH ◽  
Mary Catherine Beach, MD, MPH ◽  
Amy R. Knowlton, MPH, ScD

Objective: The study explored high-risk participants' experiences with pain management regarding clinical access to and use of prescription opioids.Design: Qualitative semistructured interviews and focus groups.Setting: Data were collected August 2014 to May 2015 at an urban community-based research facility in Baltimore City, MD.Participants: HIV participants with chronic pain and a history of illicit drug use.Methods: Qualitative coding and analysis used an iterative, inductive, and thematic approach and coders achieved inter-coder consistency.Results: The authors identified two major themes. First, participants had positive and negative interactions with healthcare providers regarding chronic pain treatment. Participants perceived that providers lacked empathy for their pain and/or were not adequately managing their pain. These interactions resulted in participants seeking new providers or mistrusting the medical system. Further, providers’ surveillance of participants’ pain treatment regimen contributed to distress surrounding pain management. The second theme centered on participants’ pain management experiences with prescribed opioid analgesics. Participants felt they were receiving dosages and classes of analgesics that did not sufficiently address their pain, and consequently modified their dosages or rationed prescription opioids. Other participants were reluctant to take analgesics due to their history of illicit drug use. Some participants relapsed to illicit drug use when they felt their prescription opioids did not adequately address their pain needs.Conclusions: Participant struggles with receiving and managing prescribed opioid analgesics suggest a need for: therapies beyond these medications; guidelines for providers specific to this population; and harm reduction trainings for providers.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (20;6) ◽  
pp. E951-E960 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Dwyer

Background: Though there is wide support for the application of biopsychosocial perspectives in clinical judgement of chronic pain cases, such perspectives are often overlooked due to either inadequate training or attitudes favoring a biomedical approach. Recent research has indicated that despite such explanations, both established general practitioners (GP) and medical students account for some psychosocial factors when making clinical judgements regarding chronic pain cases, but report not being likely to apply these in real-world, clinical settings due to numerous factors, including available time with patients. Thus, it is evident that a greater understanding of clinical judgement-making processes and the factors that affect application of these processes is required, particularly regarding chronic pain. Objectives: The aims of the current study were to investigate medical students’ conceptualizations of the factors that influence application of a biopsychosocial approach to clinical judgement-making in cases of chronic pain using interactive management (IM), model the relationships among these factors, and make recommendations to chronic pain treatment policy in light of the findings. Study Design: The current study used IM to identify and model factors that influence the application of a biopsychosocial approach to clinical judgement-making in cases of chronic pain, based on medical students’ conceptualizations of these factors. Setting: Two university classrooms. Methods: IM is a systems thinking and action mapping strategy used to aid groups in developing outcomes regarding complex issues, through integrating contributions from individuals with diverse views, backgrounds, and perspectives. IM commonly utilizes the nominal group technique and interpretive structural modeling, which in this context were employed to help medical students identify, clarify, and model influences on the application of biopsychosocial perspectives in treating chronic pain patients. Results: Results of IM group work revealed 7 core biopsychosocial approach application categories: GP attitudes, cost, GP knowledge, time, patient-doctor relationship, biomedical factors. and patient perception. GP attitudes was the most critical driver of all other competencies in the system, with cost and GP knowledge revealed as secondary drivers. Limitations: Potential differences in level of prior biopsychosocial perspective knowledge across participants and a potentially small sample size (though consistent with past research and appropriate for an exploratory study of this nature – for purposes of achieving the depth and richness of the deliberation and qualitative insights revealed by participants using the IM methodology). Conclusions: Results from this study may be used to both recommend further research on the identified factors influencing application of biopsychosocial perspectives in treatment of chronic pain and support amendment to extant health care policy, particularly with respect to cost, GP attitudes, and knowledge. Though this research claims neither that the influences identified are the only influences on biopsychosocial application, nor the order of their importance, the research does contribute to an ongoing effort to better understand the factors that influence doctors in their treatment of chronic pain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document