ABSTRACT
Pain after an acute Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (post-COVID pain) is becoming a new healthcare emergency. Precision medicine refers to an evidence-based method of grouping patients based on their diagnostic/symptom presentation and then tailoring specific treatments accordingly. Evidence suggests that post-COVID pain can be categorized as nociceptive (i.e., pain attributable to the activation of the peripheral receptive terminals of primary afferent neurons in response to noxious chemical, mechanical, or thermal stimuli), neuropathic (i.e., pain associated with a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system and limited to a "neuroanatomically plausible" distribution of the system), nociplastic (i.e., pain arising from altered nociception despite no clear evidence of actual or threatened tissue damage causing the activation of peripheral nociceptors or evidence for disease or lesion of the somatosensory system causing the pain), or mixed type (when two pain phenotypes co-exist). Each of these pain phenotypes may require a different treatment approach to maximize treatment effectiveness. Accordingly, the ability to classify post-COVID pain patients into one of these phenotypes would likely be critical for producing successful treatment outcomes. The 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) clinical criteria and grading system provide a framework for classifying pain within a precision pain medicine approach. Here we present data supporting the possibility of grouping patients with post-COVID pain into pain phenotypes, using the 2021 IASP classification criteria, with a specific focus on nociplastic pain, which is probably the primary mechanism involved in post-COVID pain. Nociplastic pain, which is usually associated with comorbid symptomology (e.g., poor sleep quality, fatigue, cognitive-emotional disturbances, etc.) and is considered to be more difficult to treat than other pain types, may require a more nuanced multimodal treatment approach to achieve better treatment outcomes.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: In response to demographic and health system pressures, the development of non-medical advanced clinical practice (ACP) roles is a key component of National Health Service workforce transformation policy in the UK. This review was undertaken to establish a baseline of evidence on ACP roles and their outcomes, impacts and implementation challenges across the UK. DESIGN: A scoping review was undertaken following JBI methodological guidance. METHODS: 13 online databases (Medline, CINAHL, ASSIA, Embase, HMIC, AMED, Amber, OT seeker, PsycINFO, PEDro, SportDiscus, Osteopathic Research and PenNutrition) and grey literature sources were searched from 2005 to 2020. Data extraction, charting and summary was guided by the PEPPA-Plus framework. The review was undertaken by a multi-professional team that included an expert lay representative. RESULTS: 191 papers met the inclusion criteria (any type of UK evidence, any sector/setting and any profession meeting the Health Education England definition of ACP). Most papers were small-scale descriptive studies, service evaluations or audits. The papers reported mainly on clinical aspects of the ACP role. Most papers related to nursing, pharmacy, physiotherapy and radiography roles and these were referred to by a plethora of different titles. ACP roles were reported to be achieving beneficial impacts across a range of clinical and health system outcomes. They were highly acceptable to patients and staff. No significant adverse events were reported. There was a lack of cost-effectiveness evidence. Implementation challenges included a lack of role clarity and an ambivalent role identity, lack of mentorship, lack of continuing professional development and an unclear career pathway. CONCLUSION: This review suggests a need for educational and role standardisation and a supported career pathway for advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) in the UK. Future research should: (i) adopt more robust study designs, (ii) investigate the full scope of the ACP role and (iii) include a wider range of professions and sectors.