Best Practices from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) for Clinical Research During a Pandemic or Emergency

The COVID-19 pandemic caught many areas of medicine in a state of unpreparedness for conducting research and completing ongoing projects during a global crisis, including the field of pain medicine. Waves of infection led to a disjointed ability to provide care and conduct clinical research. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Research Group has created guidance for pragmatic and ethical considerations for research during future emergency or disaster situations. This analysis uses governmental guidance, scientific best practices, and expert opinion to address procedure-based or device-based clinical trials during such times. Current literature offers limited recommendations on this important issue, and the findings of this group fill a void for protocols to improve patient safety and efficacy, especially as we anticipate the impact of future disasters and spreading global infectious diseases. We recommend local adaptations to best practices and innovations to enable continued research while respecting the stressors to the research subjects, investigator teams, health-care systems, and to local infrastructure.

Telepsychology May Improve Treatment Adherence in Patients with Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizures.

Introduction: Access to mental health care is a significant challenge in patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). Telepsychology can curb the access barriers and improve adherence but the role of telepsychology in improving adherence has not been well investigated. The current study examines the utility of telepsychology during the COVID-19 pandemic and treatment adherence in PNES patients. Materials and Methods: Patients with PNES admitted to a 12-week counseling program were offered two visit types: telepsychology and in-office. Visit type, visit status, and demographic information were obtained from department database. Follow-up visits in 6 months were used to examine the effect of visit type on visit status. Adherence to treatment was measured by higher attendance of scheduled visits and less cancellation and no-show rates. Results: Two hundred fifty-seven (n) patients who scheduled virtual or telepsychology visits were included in the study. After adjusting for demographic variables, and accounting for repeated measures, telepsychology visits were significantly more likely to be attended (odds ratio [OR] = 2.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.69-3.41, p < 0.001) and were significantly less likely to be canceled (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.29-0.64, p < 0.001). The regression model showed patients in the telepsychology visit group attended more than three times as many visits as in-office patients (incidence rate ratios = 3.16, 95% CI = 2.13-4.73, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with PNES have logistical and psychological barriers that can impede their ability to attend counseling treatment. Receiving care remotely may have been associated with higher engagement with mental health treatment compared to having to travel to counseling clinics. Considering the symptom-related restrictions patients with PNES have and the barriers presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, telepsychology played a key role for continuation of mental health treatment.

Incorporating Stakeholder Perspectives on Scarce Resource Allocation: Lessons Learned from Policymaking in a Time of Crisis.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis provoked an organizational ethics dilemma: how to develop ethical pandemic policy while upholding our organizational mission to deliver relationship- and patient-centered care. Tasked with producing a recommendation about whether healthcare workers and essential personnel should receive priority access to limited medical resources during the pandemic, the bioethics department and survey and interview methodologists at our institution implemented a deliberative approach that included the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patient stakeholders in the policy development process. Involving the community more, not less, during a crisis required balancing the need to act quickly to garner stakeholder perspectives, uncertainty about the extent and duration of the pandemic, and disagreement among ethicists about the most ethically supportable way to allocate scarce resources. This article explains the process undertaken to garner stakeholder input as it relates to organizational ethics, recounts the stakeholder perspectives shared and how they informed the triage policy developed, and offers suggestions for how other organizations may integrate stakeholder involvement in ethical decision-making as well as directions for future research and public health work.