Pharmacist Credentialing in Pain Management and Palliative Care

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 517-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine M. Juba

A credential is documented evidence of a pharmacist’s qualifications; while credentialing is the method used to acquire, confirm, determine, and document a pharmacist’s qualifications to practice. Voluntary credentials are important in clinical pharmacy specialties to ensure proficiency in caring for patients with complex pharmacotherapy needs. This article discusses current and future pharmacy pain management and palliative care credentialing opportunities. Pharmacists wishing to pursue voluntary pain management and palliative care credentialing may elect to take a multidisciplinary pain credentialing exam offered by the American Society of Pain Educators (ASPE) or American Academy of Pain Management (AAPM) and/or complete an American Society of Health System Pharmacists (ASHP) Postgraduate Year 2 (PGY2) pain management and palliative care pharmacy residency. A palliative care credentialing exam is not currently available to pharmacists. Efforts are underway within the pharmacy profession to standardize the board certification process, design a pain and palliative certificate program, and create a specialty pain management and palliative care board certification examination.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 178-178
Author(s):  
Fade A. Mahmoud ◽  
Konstantinos Arnaoutakis ◽  
Pooja Motwani ◽  
Liudmila N. Schafer ◽  
Paulette Mehta ◽  
...  

178 Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology considers palliative care an integral part of cancer therapy. Our Hematology and Oncology fellowship at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) began a year-long palliative care curriculum to improve symptom management education. In this pilot study we evaluate fellows’ attitude and knowledge in cancer pain management before and after implementing a pain management curriculum. Methods: Hematology and Oncology Fellows were divided into three groups. Each group delivered a one hour lecture in pain management for a total of 3 didactic lectures. We adopted “Evidence based Practice of Palliative Medicine by Goldstein and Morrison” as the main textbook. Fellows answered a 30 item questionnaire to address attitudes and knowledge in pain management. Answers were scored using a 5 point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Results: 11 fellows participated; six males, five females, median age 34 (R 28-40), one US graduate, and ten foreign graduates. More fellows felt comfortable managing acute (M = 4.3, SD = 0.48) compared to chronic (M = 3.8, SD 0.78) cancer related pain. Most believe that if they were taught the principle of pain management they would feel more comfortable managing pain (M = 4.6, SD = 0.51). Post pain management module, there was a statistically significant improvement in fellow’s knowledge in pain management in the setting of renal failure (P = 0.02) and bone pain (P = 0.006), and a trend towards statistically significant in both opioid rotation and conversion (P = 0.06). Fellows did poorly on opioid-drugs interaction and management of neuropathic pain. Fellows valued palliative medicine service as a great resource for their patients but most believe that they should not refer all their patients to palliative medicine for pain management. Conclusions: Pain management skills are eroding among Oncology fellows and efforts should be made to enhance symptom and pain management education in oncology training programs. This curriculum improved knowledge and self-efficacy in pain management and revealed areas for further improvement. More research is needed to address whether fellows use and apply pain management skills in the clinical setting.


2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002638
Author(s):  
Juan Yang ◽  
Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler ◽  
Xuan Zhou ◽  
Lesley A Johnson ◽  
Alex Do ◽  
...  

BackgroundPain is one of the most common and problematic symptoms encountered by patients with cancer. Due to the multifactorial aetiology, pain management of these patients frequently requires multidisciplinary interventions including conventional support and specialty palliative care. Acupuncture has been identified as a possible adjunctive therapy for symptom management in cancer pain, and there is currently no systematic review focused solely on the evidence of acupuncture on cancer pain in palliative care.ObjectiveTo critically analyse currently available publications regarding the use of acupuncture for pain management among patients with cancer in palliative care settings.MethodsMultiple academic databases were searched from inception to 29 October 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving acupuncture in palliative care for treatment of cancer-related pain were synthesised. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and methodological quality of each included study was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 Levels of Evidence.ResultsFive studies (n=189) were included in this systematic review. Results indicated a favourable effect of acupuncture on pain relief in palliative care for patients with cancer. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence, they were level 2 in one case (20%), level 3 in two cases (40%) and level 4 in the remaining (40%). Low-level evidence adversely affects the reliability of findings.ConclusionsAcupuncture may be an effective and safe treatment associated with pain reduction in the palliative care of patients with cancer. Further high-quality, adequately powered studies are needed in the future.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 170-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Pasero ◽  
Ann Quinlan-Colwell ◽  
Diana Rae ◽  
Kathleen Broglio ◽  
Debra Drew

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Gilson ◽  
David Joranson ◽  
Martha Maurer ◽  
Karen Ryan ◽  
Jody Garthwaite

2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 764-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay A. Thompson ◽  
Elizabeth Meinert ◽  
Kimberly Baker ◽  
Caprice Knapp

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 880-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Sarah Temin ◽  
Erin R. Alesi ◽  
Amy P. Abernethy ◽  
Tracy A. Balboni ◽  
...  

Purpose An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer. Clinical Context Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patient's illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available. Recent Data Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care—when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care—leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panel's expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research. NOTE. ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.


2006 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 30-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Barnard ◽  
E Gwyther

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document