ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The last survey of anesthesiological acute pain therapy in Germany was conducted in 1999. Since then new organisational as well as therapeutic aspects have developed. Amongst others the operation and procedures key (OPS) figure 8-919 complex acute pain therapy has been introduced in the German medical billing system, with the restriction that it cannot currently be redeemed. There is an ongoing debate on the role of epidural analgesia in acute pain therapy and new oral medication concepts have been established. Therefore a survey of the present state of acute pain therapy in Germany was conducted. METHODS: Based on a list of all 1,356 hospitals in Germany a randomized list of 412 hospitals was generated. Out of these 412 hospitals those with anesthesiology departments (378 hospitals) were contacted via telephone and asked to participate in the survey. Out of the 378 hospitals 285 (75.4 %) agreed to take part. The survey consisted of a questionnaire containing closed and open questions regarding organisational and therapeutic aspects of acute pain therapy. The ethics committee of the University of Regensburg rated the survey as not being subject to approval due to the lack of personal patient data. RESULTS: Of the participating hospitals 183 (64.2 %) had an acute pain service (APS) and of these 107 (58.5 %) met the quality criteria of the OPS 8-919. This figure however, was only consistently documented by 40 (37 %) APSs. Epidural analgesia (EA) was offered by 275 (96.5 %) hospitals and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) by 255 (89.5 %). Likewise, 255 (89.5 %) hospitals used controlled-released opioids in acute pain therapy. Concerning EA, the medications most used were sufentanil as an opioid and ropivacaine as a local anesthetic in255 (92.7 %) of the hospitals with EA for sufentanil and 253 (92 %] for ropivacaine. An EA was offered on regular wards in 240 (87.3 %) hospitals. Uncertainty existed about concrete limits for coagulation values before removal of an epidural catheter. The opioid most utilized in PCA was piritramide with some hospitals using morphine or oxycodone (92.2 %, 9.4 % and 9.4 %, respectively). Other opioids, such as hydromorphone and tramadol were rarely used and remifentanil was not used at all. Oral medication was widely used with metamizole being the non-opioid analgesic and oxycodone/naloxone the controlled-release opioid being prescribed the most. New antiepileptic drugs, such as gabapentin or pregabalin were rarely employed in acute pain therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Since 1999 the number of hospitals that have implemented an APS has risen from 36.1 % to 64.2 %. The lack of consistent documentation of the OPS 8-919 will probably not increase the likelihood that it will become redeemable in the near future. Certain therapy methods, such as EA and PCA were still well established with oral therapy gaining in significance. The uncertainty regarding limits for coagulation values before removal of an epidural catheter could perhaps be reduced by a statement from the German Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care.
Subject(s)
Acute Pain/therapy , Anesthesiology/trends , Analgesia, Epidural , Analgesia, Patient-Controlled , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Anesthesiology/organization & administration , Anesthesiology/statistics & numerical data , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Delayed-Action Preparations , Dipyrone/therapeutic use , Germany , Health Care Surveys , Hospitals , Humans , Pain Clinics/statistics & numerical data , Pirinitramide/therapeutic useABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to conduct an audit of a university inpatient pain consultation service and to examine the quality and the implementation of the recommended therapeutic measures. Factors that influenced the implementation should be identified. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All inpatients treated by the consultation service in the years 2009 and 2010 were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic patient characteristics as well as quality parameters of the consultation service and pharmacological and non-pharmacological recommendations and their implementation were analyzed. RESULTS: In total 1,048 requests for the consultation service were processed of which 39.7% of the requests were for patients with acute pain, 33.8% with chronic and 19.9% with tumor-associated pain. Measures recommended most were medication, physiotherapy and psychological treatment. Recommended medications were actually prescribed in more than 80%, physiotherapy recommended in about 75% and psychological treatment recommended in 47% of the cases. Only a few influencing factors for the implementation of the recommended measures could be identified. CONCLUSION: Many different pain states are seen in an inpatient pain consultation service. The recommendations given are implemented in most cases especially concerning the medication.
Subject(s)
Cooperative Behavior , Hospitalization , Interdisciplinary Communication , Pain Management/methods , Referral and Consultation/organization & administration , Acute Pain/psychology , Acute Pain/therapy , Aged , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Chronic Pain/psychology , Chronic Pain/therapy , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Germany , Guideline Adherence , Hospitals, University , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Clinics , Pain Measurement , Pain, Intractable/psychology , Pain, Intractable/therapy , Physical Therapy Modalities/psychology , Psychotherapy , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Anesthesiology departments were often integrated into the primary formation of palliative activities in Germany. The aim of this study was to present the current integration of anesthesiology departments into palliative care activities in Germany. METHODS: The objective was to determine current activities of anesthesiology departments in in-hospital palliative care. A quantitative study was carried out based on a self-administered structured questionnaire used during telephone interviews. RESULTS: A total of 168 out of 244 hospitals consented to participate in the study and the response rate was 69%. In-hospital palliative care activities were reported for most of the surveyed hospitals. Only two hospitals in the maximum level of care reported no activities. Participation in these activities by anesthesiology departments was described in up to 92%. Historically, most activities are due to the commitment of individuals, whereas the development of palliative care of cancer pain services and hospital support teams took place in the university hospitals by 2005. CONCLUSIONS: Until 2005 many university palliative care activities had their origins in cancer pain services. These were often integrated into anesthesiology departments. Currently, anesthesiology departments work as an integrative part of palliative medicine. However, it appears from the present results that there is a domination of internal medicine (especially hematology and oncology) in palliative activities in German hospitals. This allows the focus of palliative activities to be formed by subjective specialist interests. Such a state seems to be reduced by the integration of anesthesiology departments because of their neutrality with respect to faculty-specific medical interests. Advantages or disadvantages of these circumstances are not considered by the present investigation.
