Exploring Canadian Veterans’ priorities regarding chronic pain research: A qualitative study

LAY SUMMARY In 2020, the Canadian Federal Government launched the Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans (CPCoE). A higher proportion of Veterans experience chronic pain than the general population and the Centre wanted to understand what research topics Veterans thought the new Centre should prioritize. One-on-one interviews were conducted with 11 Canadian Veterans living with chronic pain from five provinces. Eight priority areas for future research were determined: 1) pain care in the military, 2) postoperative care in the military, 3) coordination of services through Veterans Affairs Canada, 4) military-to-civilian transition, 5) primary care provider access outside the military, 6) knowledge of pain management among civilian health care providers, 7) engaging Veterans as partners in their care, and 8) identifying effective strategies for chronic pain management. These findings will help guide research efforts of the new CPCoE.

Guided self-determination in treatment of chronic pain – a randomized, controlled trial

Objectives To test whether Guided Self-Determination (GSD) used in chronic pain management could improve the health-related quality of life, patient activation and sense of coherence (SoC) as a measurement of life skills in patients with chronic pain. The method has been shown to be effective in other chronic conditions, but has not been tested in chronic pain. Methods A three-site randomised, controlled trial at three major multidisciplinary pain centres in Denmark. 200 patients were included and randomised. In the intervention period, both groups had regular visits to the pain centre with both doctors and nurses. The intervention group additionally received the GSD intervention with weekly sessions for eight weeks. Data were collected from February 2013 to July 2016 and consisted of three questionnaires answered before and after the 8-week intervention period, and after six months. The primary outcome was self-reported health related quality of life. Secondary outcomes included self-reported activation and SoC. Results We found no clinically relevant difference between the groups for health-related quality of life, patient activation or SoC at either baseline, at three months or at six months. We also analysed data for trends over time using mixed model analysis, and this did not show any significant differences between groups. Conclusions GSD did not improve health-related quality of life, patient activation or SoC when administered to patients with chronic pain treated in a multidisciplinary pain centre. New research is recommended using a combination of self-reported and objective measures and longer follow-up.

Analgesic Opioid Misuse and Opioid Use Disorder among Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain and Prescribed Opioids in a Pain Centre in France

(1) Background: Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) remains a public health challenge around the world. Opioids (PO) have been increasingly used in the treatment of CNCP in the last 20 years. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of opioid misuse and prescribed-opioid use disorder (p-OUD) among patients with CNCP in a pain centre in France, and to analyse risk factors for moderate or severe p-OUD. (2) Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted, including patients consulting for pain management in the pain centre of Brest University Hospital. A self-questionnaire was administered (sociodemographic data, medical data, PO misuse, and p-OUD according the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM 5) criteria). Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses were conducted, together with a principal component analysis, in order to identify factors associated with p-OUD. (3) Results: In total, 115 patients were included, the majority of whom were women, with a mean age of 52 years old [18–82]; 64.3% (n = 74) had a current prescription for opioid analgesics (weak or strong). In this group, 56.7% (n = 42) had no or only mild p-OUD and 43.3% (n = 32) had current moderate or severe p-OUD. Patients with moderate or severe p-OUD were more likely to have a current antidepressant prescription, to have had psychotherapy, to currently use strong opioids and oxycodone, and to report taking more frequent doses than prescribed and feeling dependent. (4) Conclusions: We showed that the prevalence of current moderate/severe p-OUD concerned 43.3% of the patients with a CNCP seeking treatment in a pain centre. According to these results, several measures are relevant in managing p-OUD among patients with CNCP.

Effectiveness of chest pain centre accreditation on the management of acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective study using a national database

BackgroundLarge-scale real-world data to evaluate the impact of chest pain centre (CPC) accreditation on acute coronary syndrome (ACS) emergency care in heavy-burden developing countries like China are rare.MethodsThis study is a retrospective study based on data from the Hospital Quality Monitoring System (HQMS) database. This study included emergency patients admitted with ACS to hospitals that uploaded clinical data continuously to the database from 2013 to 2016. Propensity score matching was used to compare hospitals with and without CPC accreditation during this period. A longitudinal self-contrast comparison design with mixed-effects models was used to compare management of ACS before and after accreditation.ResultsA total of 798 008 patients with ACS from 746 hospitals were included in the analysis. After matching admission date, hospital levels and types and adjusting for possible covariates, patients with ACS admitted to accredited CPCs had lower in-hospital mortality (OR=0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.93), shorter length of stay (LOS; adjusted multiplicative effect=0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.94) and more percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures (OR=3.53, 95% CI 2.20 to 5.66) than patients admitted in hospitals without applying for CPC accreditation. Furthermore, when compared with the ‘before accreditation’ group only in accredited CPCs, the in-hospital mortality and LOS decreased and the usage of PCI were increased in both ‘accreditation’ (for in-hospital mortality: OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.93; for LOS: 0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95; for PCI: OR=1.22, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.26) and ‘after accreditation’ groups (for in-hospital mortality: OR=0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97; for LOS: 0.89, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.90; for PCI: OR=1.36, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.39). The significant benefits of decreased in-hospital mortality, reduced LOS and increased PCI usage were also observed for patients with acute myocardial infarction.ConclusionsCPC accreditation is associated with better management and in-hospital clinical outcomes of patients with ACS. CPC establishment and accreditation should be promoted and implemented in countries with high levels of ACS.

Collaboration between a tertiary pain centre and community teams during the pandemic

People with chronic pain faced potential treatment disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore, as the focus of healthcare shifted. A model of rapid integration of a pain centre with community healthcare teams was implemented to care for vulnerable older patients with chronic pain and multiple comorbidities. Telemedicine and home visits by community nurses were used, with risk-mitigation measures, ensuring comprehensive assessment and treatment compliance. Medications from pain physicians were delivered at home through a hospital pharmacy. A secure national electronic health records system used by all teams ensured seamless access and documentation. Potential emergency department visits, admissions and delayed discharges were thus avoided. Integration of community teams with chronic pain management services can be recommended to ensure pandemic preparedness.

“No one wants you” – a qualitative study on the experiences of receiving rejection from tertiary care pain centres

Background and aimsFour out of 10 referrals to tertiary care pain centres in Norway are not granted pain centre treatment, confirming earlier research on that this group of patients struggle to access the highest standard of care. Still, no study investigating how people with chronic pain experience rejections from pain centres was found. The aim of the study was therefore to investigate how people with chronic pain experience receiving a rejection from tertiary care pain centres after being referred by their general practitioners (GPs).MethodsThis was a qualitative study with semi-structured individual interviews with 12 persons, seven men and five women, rejected from the four different pain centres in Norway. The data were analysed thematically using systematic text condensation.ResultsThe pain centre rejection created strong reactions, partly because the rejection was perceived as a refusal from the health care system as a whole. This was especially so because the pain centre was regarded as the last remaining treatment option, and given the rejection, they were now declined help by the experts in the field. Even though some informants had received an explanation for why they had not been granted pain centre treatment, a prominent experience was that the informants found it difficult to understand why their referral had been rejected given the severity of their pain. The incomprehensibility of the rejection together with a feeling of lack of future treatment options, increased the hopelessness and frustration of their situation and made it challenging to move on and search for help elsewhere.ConclusionsThe experiences with the pain centre rejections indicate that the rejection can have grave consequences for each individual in the following months. An improved system for how to handle expectations towards referrals, including prepare for the possibility of rejection and how to follow up a rejection, seems warranted.ImplicationsBecause a pain centre rejection most likely is received by persons in a vulnerable position, there should be available health care services to help them understand the rejections. And furthermore, help them to move from disappointment and hopelessness, towards an experience of empowerment and reorientation, by for instance planning further actions and interventions, and thereby, acknowledge their need for help.

A hybrid SWOT analysis of the neuromodulation process for chronic pain

Background: Spinal cord stimulation is an efficient treatment for selected patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Since 2015, neuromodulation nurses at Kuopio University Hospital have been responsible for patient education and stimulator adjustments. Aims: The purpose is to determine what factors professionals perceived to affect patients' wellbeing in the neuromodulation process for chronic neuropathic pain. Methods: Four nurses and four physicians on the neuromodulation team performed a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis of the operational environment. All evaluated the attributes independently, and a multiple-criteria analysis was performed based on the results. Findings: The most important factors were excellent or good treatment results, having neuromodulation nurses, having a well-functioning neuromodulation team, vulnerability because of the limited number of specialists, and the establishment of a pain centre. Conclusion: This study highlights the importance of neuromodulation nurses and teamwork in chronic pain neuromodulation. The establishment of a multidisciplinary pain centre is strongly recommended.