Improving cancer patients' pain: the impact of the hospital specialist palliative care team

Pain is reported to occur in the majority of patients with advanced cancer and is one of the main reasons for referral to a hospital specialist palliative care team. Yet despite this, there is a paucity of research into the impact the hospital specialist palliative care team has on pain control in patients. A non-equivalent control group design using a quota sample investigated 100 cancer patients who had been admitted to hospital for symptom control. Fifty patients received specialist hospital palliative care team intervention compared with 50 patients receiving traditional care. Outcome was assessed using the Palliative Care Assessment (PACA) tool on three occasions. There was no difference between the groups on the initial assessment and the results indicated that all cancer patients admitted to hospital had a significant improvement in their pain control. However, the patients who had the additional input of the palliative care team demonstrated a statistically significant greater improvement than the control group (P<0.001). Potential explanations are made for the results including the enhanced knowledge and skills of the hospital specialist palliative care team.     

Attitudes towards pain management in hospitalized cancer patients and their influencing factors

Objective:To investigate patients' attitudes towards cancer pain management and analyze the factors influencing these attitudes.Methods:The self-developed Demographic and Disease-Related Information Questionnaires,Pain Management Barriers Questionnaire-Taiwan form (BQT),and Pain Knowledge Questionnaire were administered to 363 pairs of hospitalized cancer patients and their caregivers from the oncology departments of 7 hospitals in Beijing,China.Results:The average patient score for attitudes towards pain management was 2.96±0.49.The dimension scores indicated good attitudes in three areas (scores ＜2.5),"Desire to be good" (2.22±1.04),"Fatalism" (2.08±0.81) and "Religious fatalism" (1.86±1.00),and poor attitudes in six areas (scores ≥2.5),"Tolerance" (3.83±0.96),"Use of analgesics as needed (p.r.n.)" (3.73±1.01),"Addiction" (3.44±1.05),"Disease progression" (3.28±1.26),"Distraction of physicians" (3.16±1.07) and "Side effects" (2.99±0.68).Two factors were entered into the regression equation:the caregivers' attitudes towards cancer pain management and the patients' pain knowledge.These two factors explained 23.2％ of the total variance in the patients' average scores for their attitudes towards cancer pain management.Conclusions:The patients' attitudes towards cancer pain management were poor and could be influenced by the caregivers' attitudes and the patients' pain knowledge,and thus need to be improved.     

Patients' and nurses' assessment of cancer pain

The purpose of this study was to examine hospitalised cancer patients' and nurses' assessment of patients' cancer pain and to compare them. The data were collected from 51 patient–nurse pairs in two hospitals from oncological and medical clinics. Each nurse and patient took part in the study no more than once. The data were collected with a structured interview and the questionnaire. The intensity of pain was measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Finnish version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire (FPQ). The results showed that the differences between patients' and nurses' assessments were statistically significant for most intensive pain and for acceptable pain. In both cases nurses' assessments of the intensity of pain were lower than patients' assessments. The nurses identified 40 words in the verbal FPQ that the patients used in describing their experiences of pain. The words used most often by patients were agonizing, tender, wave-like and radiant. The word that the nurses used most often was that of intense. Nurses' knowledge about pain medication in general and morphine in particular was clearly associated with the differences observed in estimates of the intensity of pain. Nurses with poor knowledge underestimated the patients' most intensive experiences of pain. The difference was statistically significant.     

Pharmacologic management of pain: the surgeon's responsibility

Historically, surgeons have had to witness their patients' pain probably longer than any specialty within medicine. Pain relief in palliative care forms the cornerstone of a comprehensive pattern of care that encompasses the physical, psychologic, social, and spiritual aspects of suffering. In a society that lives by mottoes, such as "no pain, no gain," and "just say no to drugs," pervasive subconscious barriers to effective pain relief exist. In being responsible for effective pain management to the patient, the surgeon must first set aside his or her own beliefs and attitudes regarding pain and its control and be open to change.     

癌痛及其对癌症患者生活质量影响的调查

目的　探讨癌痛及其对癌症患者生活质量的影响。方法　应用简明健康状况调查表(SF 36简表 )及简明疼痛调查表 (briefpaininventoryBPI)对 2 0 0例住院患者的癌痛情况、癌痛对其生活质量的影响及癌痛的处理进行系统的调查。结果　 (1)疼痛的发生率为 6 9 0 % ,其中轻度疼痛占2 1.5 % ,中度疼痛占 19.0 % ,重度疼痛占 2 8.5 %。 (2 )中、重度疼痛患者中消化道肿瘤比例较高。 (3)疼痛与疾病分期无关 (P >0 .0 5 )。 (4)疼痛的发生与骨转移的存在密切相关 (P <0 .0 1)。 (5 )无论是轻度、中度还是重度疼痛 ,均严重影响患者的日常生活、情绪、行走能力、工作、睡眠 ,且随着疼痛程度的加重 ,影响也逐渐加深。但在对生活乐趣和社交两方面的影响上 ,中度疼痛和重度疼痛差异无显著性 (P >0 .0 5 )。 (6 )中度疼痛对患者精神状态的影响要早于重度疼痛 ,因此在癌症患者的疼痛达到中度时 ,就应在止痛治疗的同时密切配合对其心理上的治疗 ,以期达到更好的疼痛缓解。 (7)在疼痛处理上 ,未经适当处理的占 41.3% ;在重度疼痛中 ,强阿片类药物应用仅达 5 2 .1% ,与WHO要求的阶梯止痛治疗原则差距较大。结论　疼痛是影响生活质量的一个重要因素 ,而癌痛的治疗尚存在较大差距。要达到WHO提出的到 2 0 0 0年使全世界癌症患者     

The Good Pain Management （GPM） Ward Program in China and its impact on Chinese cancer patients： the SYSUCC experience

To improve cancer pain management, trle MeCllCal uncology uepartmem of sun yat-sen University Cancer Center （SYSUCC） launched the Good Pain Management （GPM） Ward Program, which has been recognized by the Chinese Ministry of Health and promoted throughout the nation. This retrospective casecontrol study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. Patients diagnosed with malignant solid tumors with bone metastasis were eligible. Patients who were admitted 6 months before the initiation of the GPM program were used as the control group, and patients admitted 6 months after the initiation of the program were used as the GPM group. The painreporting rate and pain management index （PMI） were calculated. The pain levels before and after pain management were compared. A total of 475 patients （244 in the control group and 231 in the GPM group） were analyzed. The painreporting rate of the GPM group was significantly higher than that of the control group （62.8% vs. 37.7%, P 〈 0.001）. The PMI of the GPM group was significantly higher than that of the control group （0.083 vs. -0.261, P 〈 0.001）. Therefore, the GPM Ward Program improved the pain management of cancer patients and provided experience for improving cancer pain management in the future.     

Supportive care in oncology

Pain management, nutritional support, and psychosocial support are fundamental services that enhance patients' ability to cope with their cancer and its therapy. The common goal of symptom prevention mandates that each of these supportive services be provided to all patients throughout their cancer experience. Comprehensive cancer pain management begins with identifying the origin of all of the patient's pains and treating each one specifically. Pain prevention can be achieved through around-the-clock opioid administration with as-needed supplements for breakthrough pain and dose titration. Common narcotic side effects such as constipation and nausea also must be prevented. Successful opioid analgesia requires that patient and family concerns regarding addiction and tolerance be dispelled at the outset. Cancer pain prevention can be further optimized with the use of appropriate coanalgesics in response to the pathophysiology of the patient's pains. Cognitive and behavioral therapies may also be useful adjuncts to reduce both pain and suffering. Procedure-oriented pain control should be considered when systemic pharmacologic therapy does not provide adequate pain relief or is associated with intolerable side effects. The only absolute contraindications for pain-relieving procedures are untreatable coagulopathy and a decrease in mental status not related to medical pain management. Useful neurodestructive techniques include radiofrequency lesioning, cryoanalgesia, and chemical neurolysis with agents such as phenol, alcohol, and hypertonic saline. The most beneficial pain-relieving procedures and percutaneous cordotomy, spinal narcotics, celiac and hypogastric plexus ablation, spinal neurolysis, and epidural injection of steroids and hypertonic saline. Procedure selection depends on the cause of the pain and the patient's prognosis. Common indications for pain-relieving procedures include unilateral pain below the shoulder, upper abdominal visceral pains, pelvic visceral pain, perineal pain, vertebral body metastasis, discogenic pain, and spinal stenosis. As results of well-conducted scientific trials begin to appear in the literature, the indications for these procedures will be better understood, resulting in their more appropriate use. Principles of nutritional support in patients with cancer include an awareness of the problem of malnutrition and its impact on performance status, quality of life, prognosis, and treatment; identification of those patients at risk; prophylactic versus therapeutic intervention; and analysis and management of the specific impediment(s) to adequate nutrient intake and absorption. The primary goals for nutritional support in cancer patients are prevention of weight loss and maintenance of adequate protein status. Appreciation of practical issues of nutritional support will enable the practicing physician to achieve these goals using primarily oral nutrition options.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Clinical experience with transdermal and orally administered opioids in palliative care patients--a retrospective study

BACKGROUND: Transdermal fentanyl is a widely used opioid for the treatment of cancer pain. Simplicity of use and high patient compliance are the main advantages of this opioid. However, based on our clinical experience, transdermal fentanyl is often not efficacious in terminally ill palliative care patients. We thus retrospectively examined the pain management and need for opioid switching in cancer patients admitted to our palliative care unit. METHODS: Of 354 patients admitted to our palliative care unit from 2004 through 2005, 81 patients were pre-treated with transdermal fentanyl. Demographic and cancer-related data (diagnosis, symptoms, pain score on a numeric rating scale (NRS)), analgesic dose at admission and discharge were compared. Statistics: mean +/- SD, ANOVA, Wilcoxon's test was used for inter-group comparisons, significance P < 0.05, adjusted for multiple testing. Pain scores are given in median (range). RESULTS: Mean transdermal fentanyl dose at admission was 81.0 +/- 55.8 microg/h. In 79 patients transdermal fentanyl treatment was discontinued. In two patients, analgesic treatment according to WHO I provided sufficient pain relief. The other 77 patients were switched to other opioids: 33 patients to oral morphine and 44 to oral hydromorphone. In patients switched to morphine the dose at discharge (104.7 +/- 89.0 mg) was lower than at admission (165.5 mg morphine equivalence). In patients switched to hydromorphone the dose of 277.8 +/- 255.0 mg morphine equivalent was higher at discharge than at admission (218.2 +/- 131.4 mg morphine equivalence--considering an equianalgesic conversion ratio morphine: hydromorphone = 7.5: 1). Pain scores decreased significantly after opioid rotation (NRS at rest/on exertion: 4 (0-10)/7 (2-10) versus 1 (0-3)/2 (0-5); P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the patient group switched to morphine, sufficient pain relief was achieved by lower equianalgesic morphine doses, compared with the doses at admission. In the patient group switched to hydromorphone, higher equianalgesic morphine doses were needed at discharge, considering an equianalgesic conversion ratio of morphine: hydromorphone = 7.5: 1. Patients with far advanced cancer often suffer from sweating and cachexia, which may have negative effects on the absorption of transdermal fentanyl. Opioid switching to oral morphine or hydromorphone was well tolerated and proved to be an efficacious option for cancer pain treatment.     

安宁疗护改善重症监护病房晚期肺癌疼痛患者生存质量的效果观察

目的分析安宁疗护改善重症监护室(ICU)晚期肺癌疼痛患者生存质量的效果。方法随机数字表法将100例晚期肺癌患者随机分为对照组与干预组,每组50例,对照组患者接受常规干预措施,干预组患者在此基础上给予安宁疗护。干预前后,根据世界卫生组织(WHO)疼痛分级法比较两组患者的疼痛情况;采用患者尊严量表(PDI)比较两组患者的尊严水平;采用总体幸福感量表(GWB)比较两组患者的主观幸福感;采用欧洲癌症治疗研究组织的生活质量核心问卷(EORTC QLQ-C30)比较两组患者的生存质量。结果干预前,两组患者疼痛程度、PDI量表、GWB量表和EORTC QLQ-C30量表评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P﹥0.05)。干预后,干预组患者疼痛程度弱于对照组患者,差异有统计学意义(P﹤0.05),干预组患者症状困扰、心理状况、依赖性、精神安宁和PDI量表总分均低于本组干预前和对照组患者(P﹤0.05),生活的满足和兴趣、对健康的担心、精力、抑郁或愉快的心境、对情感和行为的控制、松弛和紧张、幸福感总分均高于本组干预前和对照组患者(P﹤0.05),躯体功能、角色功能、情绪功能、认知功能和总分均高于本组干预前和对照组患者(P﹤0.05)。结论安宁疗护能够减轻ICU晚期肺癌疼痛患者疼痛程度,维护患者临终前尊严,提高其主观幸福感,并改善生存质量。     

Clinical Study on Fluvoxamine Combined with Oxycodone Prolonged-Release Tablets in Treating Patients with Moderate to Severe Cancer Pain

Objective: To observe treatment effects and safety of fluvoxamine combined with oxycodone prolonged-releasetablets in treating patients with moderate to severe cancer pain. Methods: Patients confirmed pathologicallywith cancer and complicated with moderate to severe pain, were divided into control and experimental groups.Oxycodone prolonged-release tablets, with or without fluvoxamine, were administrated to all study patientsuntil pain relief. Degree of pain relief, dose of oxycodone prolonged-release tablets, side effects and quality oflife were compared before and after treatment. Results: In total, 120 patients were recruited. No statisticallysignificant difference was detected regarding age, gender, types of cancer, KPS between two groups of patients(P> 0.05). Baseline pain score of patients with moderate pain in treatment and control group was 4.9±0.8 and5.1±0.8, respectively; and decreased to 1.8±1.1 and 1.2±1.1 after treatment, respectively. Pain intensity wassignificantly reduced in the treatment group (P =0.028). Average daily consumption of oxycodone prolongedreleasetablets was (54.0±19.6) mg and (44.7± 18.7) mg respectively, which is lower in treatment grpup than incontrol group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.065). Baseline pain score of patients withsevere pain in treatment and control groups were 8.3±1.1 and 8.3±1.1, respectively; and pain intensity aftertreatment decreased to 2.9±1.0 and 2.3±1.0. Pain intensity was significantly reduced in the treatment group,with statistical significance (P =0.026). Average daily consumption of oxycodone prolonged-release tablets was(132.0±42.2) mg and (110.7±33.9) mg, respectively, which is lower in treatment group than in control group, andthe difference was statistically significant (P=0.035). In terms of quality of life, patients in treatment group hadbetter performance status, daily activity, mood, and sleep than that in control group (P < 0.05). Patients in twogroups had similar side effects, eg., constipation, nausea/vomiting, lethargy, dizziness, itchy skin, dysuria, andataxia. Lower incidence of nausea/vomiting, lethargy, was obtained from patients in treatment than in controlgroup, while significant low constipation was observed in treatment than in control group (35.0% vs 49.2%,P=0.026). Conclusion: Fluvoxamine combined with oxycodone prolonged-release tablets could be more effectivein treating patients with cancer pain, and could reduce the dosage of oxycodone prolonged-release tablets andthus be associated with lower side effects, and improved quality of life.     

Variations in pain management outcomes among palliative care centers and the impact of organizational factors

BACKGROUND:

The assessment of pain management outcomes is important for the quality assurance of palliative care. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are significant variations in pain management outcomes among palliative care centers and whether they are affected by organizational factors.

METHODS:

Data used in this investigation were from the 2009 Korean Terminal Cancer Patient Information System and administrative records of the 34 inpatient palliative care centers designated by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2009. Self‐reported pain scores (range, from 0 to 10) at admission and 1 week after admission were prospectively collected. Multilevel mixed‐effect regression models were used to analyze the variations and the impact of organizational‐level factors on 2 pain management outcomes (ie, reduction in average pain score and achievement of adequate pain control at 1 week after admission).

RESULTS:

In total, 1711 patients with terminal cancer were included in the analyses. The mean reduction in the pain score was 0.69 to 1.91 after 1 week, and most patients (82.8%) achieved adequate pain control. There were significant variations in pain management outcomes among palliative care centers. Higher composite scores for human resources adequacy were associated significantly with a greater reduction in pain score (β, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.01‐0.21), and achievement of adequate pain control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.10‐1.45).

CONCLUSIONS:

There were significant variations in pain management outcomes among inpatient palliative care centers, and they were affected by organizational factors, such as human resources adequacy. Cancer 2011. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Progress of cancer pain management in Korea

Cancer pain management had received relatively little attention until the late 1990s, when approximately 100,000 new cancer cases and 60,000 cancer deaths occurred each year in Korea. In 2001, a Cancer Pain Management Guideline was prepared for the first time by the Korean Society of Hospice and Palliative Care. This guideline facilitated cancer pain management by health professionals since then. In addition, cancer pain management has been included in the regular curriculum of all medical schools in Korea. The Korean Cancer Pain Assessment Tool, which was developed in 2003, has been accepted as a reliable and valid instrument for assessing cancer pain in Korea. The Korean version of quality of life assessment tools has also been accepted as a useful method. Oral short-acting opioids became available, along with other effective and convenient opioid drugs. The Korean government first published the Cancer Pain Management Guideline for health care professionals in 2004 and expanded the medical reimbursement criteria for cancer pain management, which reflect the government's support and interest in cancer pain care. The cancer pain surveys conducted in 2001 and 2006 demonstrated a significantly increased patient satisfaction on pain control (37% in 2001, n = 3,006 vs. 42% in 2006, n = 3,737, p = 0.003). Therefore, cancer pain management has been systematically approached both by health professionals as well as the government and resulted in a vast improvement in cancer pain control.     

Integrating palliative care in oncologic emergency departments: Challenges and opportunities

Although visiting the emergency departments (EDs) is considered poor quality of cancer care, there are indications these visits are increasing. Similarly, there is growing interest in providing palliative care (PC) to cancer patients in EDs. However, this integration is not without major challenges. In this article, we review the literature on why cancer patients visit EDs, the rates of hospitalization and mortality for these patients, and the models for integrating PC in EDs. We discuss opportunities such integration will bring to the quality of cancer care, and resource utilization of resources. We also discuss barriers faced by this integration. We found that the most common reasons for ED visits by cancer patients are pain, fever, shortness of breath, and gastrointestinal symptoms. The majority of the patients are admitted to hospitals, about 13% of the admitted patients die during hospitalization, and some patients die in ED. Patients who receive PC at an ED have shorter hospitalization and lower resource utilization. Models based solely on increasing PC provision in EDs by PC specialists have had modest success, while very limited ED-based PC provision has had slightly higher impact. However, details of these programs are lacking, and coordination between ED based PC and hospital-wide PC is not clear. In some studies, the objectives were to improve care in the communities and reduce ED visits and hospitalizations. We conclude that as more patients receive cancer therapy late in their disease trajectory, more cancer patients will visit EDs. Integration of PC with emergency medicine will require active participation of ED physicians in providing PC to cancer patients. PC specialist should play an active role in educating ED physicians about PC, and provide timely consultations. The impact of integrating PC in EDs on quality and cost of cancer care should be studied.     

Development and introduction of a pain score documentation chart in the acute oncology setting

Background: Recommendations to improve cancer pain management include the introduction of routine and clearly visible documentation of pain scores. Whilst this practise has been adopted in many cancer and palliative care units, longitudinal evidence to support the view that the practise has provided improved analgesic outcomes for patients is limited. The aims of this study were threefold; (i) to collaboratively develop a locally acceptable pain documentation chart; (ii) to test this chart by comparing patient‐reported and nurse‐documented scores with pain scores collected by researchers using validated measures; and (iii) to examine whether or not pain scores and analgesia scores longitudinally improved over the study period. Methods: Using a multidisciplinary approach, a pain score documentation chart was developed for use on an acute hospital's oncology ward. Prior to the chart's introduction, the brief pain inventory (BPI) was administered to 45 in‐patients. The patients were then asked to report on a regular basis their numeric pain scores, which were documented on the chart. At the time of discharge or after 7 days, the BPI was repeated. The pain chart scores and the BPI item, ‘average pain experienced in the preceding 24 h’ were correlated. Results: The initial chart scores significantly correlated with the first BPI score (P = 0.001), and a similar relationship was found between scores collected at the end of the study period (P = 0.020). Analgesic scores improved, patients were satisfied with the approach taken to their analgesic management and the pain scores were charted with a similar frequency to vital signs (pulse, temperature, blood pressure). Conclusions: Pain score charting is feasible and acceptable to patients and nursing staff in an acute hospital. Most importantly, this process has the potential to improve the analgesic outcomes of cancer patients.     

The management of cancer pain

The experience of pain in cancer is widely accepted as a major threat to quality of life, and the relief of pain has emerged as a priority in oncology care. Pain is associated with both the disease as well as treatment, and management is essential from the onset of early disease through long-term survivorship or end-of-life care. Effective relief of pain is contingent upon a comprehensive assessment to identify physical, psychological, social, and spiritual aspects and as a foundation for multidisciplinary interventions. Fortunately, advances in pain treatment and in the field of palliative care have provided effective treatments encompassing pharmacological, cognitive-behavioral, and other approaches. The field of palliative care has emphasized that attention to symptoms such as pain is integral to quality cancer care.     

中西医治疗癌症疼痛的现状及思考

大多数癌症患者都有不同程度的疼痛,癌痛不仅影响了患者的生活质量,降低患者的生存信心,还有可能促进肿瘤的进展和转移。虽然目前止痛的方法多种多样,但癌痛控制仍是临床的难题。     

Pain experienced by lung cancer patients: a review of prevalence, causes and pathophysiology

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is one of the commonest cancers to cause pain, but little is known regarding the extent of this complex problem in these patients. METHODS: Medline (1966-June 2002) and Cancerlit (1975-May 2002) were searched to identify studies of lung cancer patients' experience of pain, its prevalence, causes and underlying pathophysiology. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were identified. Patients were recruited from diverse populations, and the prevalence varied according to study setting. Pain affected 27% of outpatients (range 8-85%), and 76% of patients cared for by palliative care services (range 63-88%). Pain was caused by cancer in 73% (range 44-87%), and cancer treatment in 11% (range 5-17%). Nociceptive pain was the major pathophysiological subtype in lung cancer pain, but neuropathic pain accounted for 30% (range 25-32%) of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The overall weighted mean pain prevalence of pain was 47% (range 6-100%). Cancer patients should be asked about pain at all stages of management. Those with pain should be investigated for disease progression and considered for referral for specialist management.     

Implementing guidelines for cancer pain management: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Pain and symptom management is an integral part of the clinical practice of oncology. A number of guidelines have been developed to assist the clinician in optimizing comfort care. We implemented clinical guidelines for cancer pain management in the community setting and evaluated whether these guidelines improved care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-one cancer patients, aged 37 to 76 years, were enrolled onto a prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled study from the outpatient clinic settings of 26 western Washington-area medical oncologists. A multilevel treatment algorithm based on the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Guidelines for Cancer Pain Management was compared with standard-practice (control) pain and symptom management therapies used by community oncologists. The primary outcome of interest was pain (Brief Pain Inventory); secondary outcomes of interest were all other symptoms (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale) and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale). RESULTS: Patients randomized to the pain algorithm group achieved a statistically significant reduction in usual pain intensity, measured as slope scores, when compared with standard community practice (P < .02). Concurrent chemotherapy and patient adherence to treatment were significant mediators of worst pain. There were no significant differences in other symptoms or quality of life between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: This guideline implementation study supports the use of algorithmic decision making in the management of cancer pain. These findings suggest that comprehensive pain assessment and evidence-based analgesic decision-making processes do enhance usual pain outcomes.