Does Screening for Pain Correspond to High Quality Care for Veterans?

Routine numeric screening for pain is widely recommended, but its association with overall quality of pain care is unclear. To assess adherence to measures of pain management quality and identify associated patient and provider factors. A cross-sectional visit-based study. One hundred and forty adult VA outpatient primary care clinic patients reporting a numeric rating scale (NRS) of moderate to severe pain (four or more on a zero to ten scale). Seventy-seven providers completed a baseline survey regarding general pain management attitudes and a post-visit survey regarding management of 112 participating patients. We used chart review to determine adherence to four validated process quality indicators (QIs) including noting pain presence, pain character, and pain control, and intensifying pharmacological intervention. The average NRS was 6.7. Seventy-three percent of charts noted the presence of pain, 13.9% the character, 23.6% the degree of control, and 15.3% increased pain medication prescription. Charts were more likely to include documentation of pain presence if providers agreed that “patients want me to ask about pain” and “pain can have negative consequences on patient’s functioning”. Charts were more likely to document character of pain if providers agreed that “patients are able to rate their pain”. Patients with musculoskeletal pain were less likely to have chart documentation of character of pain. Despite routine pain screening in VA, providers seldom documented elements considered important to evaluation and treatment of pain. Improving pain care may require attention to all aspects of pain management, not just screening

Breathlessness and presentation to the emergency department : a survey and clinical record review

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is a frequently occurring symptom of cardiorespiratory conditions and is a common cause of emergency department presentation. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of acute-on-chronic breathlessness as a cause for presentation to the major emergencies area of the emergency department. METHODS: A prospective patient self-report survey and clinical record review of consecutive attendees to the major emergencies area of the emergency department in a single tertiary hospital between 12/5/14 and 29/5/14 was conducted. Eligible patients were clinically stable and had mental capacity to provide data. RESULTS: There were 2,041 presentations during the study period, of whom 1,345 (66%) were eligible. There was a 90% survey response rate (1,212/1,345); 424/1,212 (35%) self-reported breathlessness most days over the past month of whom 245 gave breathlessness as a reason for this presentation. Therefore, the prevalence of acute-on-chronic breathlessness as a reason to present to the major emergencies area was 20.2% (245/1,212, 95% CI 17.9% to 22.5%). During this period there were 4,692 major and minor presentations; breathlessness was therefore a cause of at least 5.2% (245/4,692, 95% CI 4.6 to 5.9%) of all emergency department presentations. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that one in five ambulance presentations to the ED were due to acute-on-chronic breathlessness. Most patients had non-malignant underlying conditions, had experienced considerable breathlessness for an extended period, had discussed breathlessness with their GP and presented out of daytime hours. Others were often involved in their decision to present. This represents clinically significant burden for patients, their family carers and the emergency health services

Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of under-detection and poor management of pain in patients with dementia, in both long-term and acute care. Accurate assessment of pain in people with dementia is challenging and pain assessment tools have received considerable attention over the years, with an increasing number of tools made available. Systematic reviews on the evidence of their validity and utility mostly compare different sets of tools. This review of systematic reviews analyses and summarises evidence concerning the psychometric properties and clinical utility of pain assessment tools in adults with dementia or cognitive impairment. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews of pain assessment tools providing evidence of reliability, validity and clinical utility. Two reviewers independently assessed each review and extracted data from them, with a third reviewer mediating when consensus was not reached. Analysis of the data was carried out collaboratively. The reviews were synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: We retrieved 441 potentially eligible reviews, 23 met the criteria for inclusion and 8 provided data for extraction. Each review evaluated between 8 and 13 tools, in aggregate providing evidence on a total of 28 tools. The quality of the reviews varied and the reporting often lacked sufficient methodological detail for quality assessment. The 28 tools appear to have been studied in a variety of settings and with varied types of patients. The reviews identified several methodological limitations across the original studies. The lack of a 'gold standard' significantly hinders the evaluation of tools' validity. Most importantly, the samples were small providing limited evidence for use of any of the tools across settings or populations. CONCLUSIONS: There are a considerable number of pain assessment tools available for use with the elderly cognitive impaired population. However there is limited evidence about their reliability, validity and clinical utility. On the basis of this review no one tool can be recommended given the existing evidence

Study on the clinical application of pulsed DC magnetic technology for tracking of intraoperative head motion during frameless stereotaxy

BACKGROUND: Tracking of post-registration head motion is one of the major problems in frameless stereotaxy. Various attempts in detecting and compensating for this phenomenon rely on a fixed reference device rigidly attached to the patient's head. However, most of such reference tools are either based on an invasive fixation technique or have physical limitations which allow mobility of the head only in a restricted range of motion after completion of the registration procedure. METHODS: A new sensor-based reference tool, the so-called Dynamic Reference Frame (DRF) which is designed to allow an unrestricted, 360° range of motion for the intraoperative use in pulsed DC magnetic navigation was tested in 40 patients. Different methods of non-invasive attachment dependent on the clinical need and type of procedure, as well as the resulting accuracies in the clinical application have been analyzed. RESULTS: Apart from conventional, completely rigid immobilization of the head (type A), four additional modes of head fixation and attachment of the DRF were distinguished on clinical grounds: type B1 = pin fixation plus oral DRF attachment; type B2 = pin fixation plus retroauricular DRF attachment; type C1 = free head positioning with oral DRF; and type C2 = free head positioning with retroauricular DRF. Mean fiducial registration errors (FRE) were as follows: type A interventions = 1.51 mm, B1 = 1.56 mm, B2 = 1.54 mm, C1 = 1.73 mm, and C2 = 1.75 mm. The mean position errors determined at the end of the intervention as a measure of application accuracy were: 1.45 mm in type A interventions, 1.26 mm in type B1, 1.44 mm in type B2, 1.86 mm in type C1, and 1.68 mm in type C2. CONCLUSION: Rigid head immobilization guarantees most reliable accuracy in various types of frameless stereotaxy. The use of an additional DRF, however, increases the application scope of frameless stereotaxy to include e.g. procedures in which rigid pin fixation of the cranium is not required or desired. Thus, continuous tracking of head motion allows highly flexible variation of the surgical strategy including intraoperative repositioning of the patient without impairment of navigational accuracy as it ensures automatic correction of spatial distortion. With a dental cast for oral attachment and the alternative option of non-invasive retroauricular attachment, flexibility in the clinical use of the DRF is ensured

How useful are systematic reviews for informing palliative care practice? Survey of 25 Cochrane systematic reviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In contemporary medical research, randomised controlled trials are seen as the gold standard for establishing treatment effects where it is ethical and practical to conduct them. In palliative care such trials are often impractical, unethical, or extremely difficult, with multiple methodological problems. We review the utility of Cochrane reviews in informing palliative care practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Published reviews in palliative care registered with the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group as of December 2007 were obtained from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, issue 1, 2008. We reviewed the quality and quantity of primary studies available for each review, assessed the quality of the review process, and judged the strength of the evidence presented. There was no prior intention to perform any statistical analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>25 published systematic reviews were identified. Numbers of included trials ranged from none to 54. Within each review, included trials were heterogeneous with respect to patients, interventions, and outcomes, and the number of patients contributing to any single analysis was generally much lower than the total included in the review. A variety of tools were used to assess trial quality; seven reviews did not use this information to exclude low quality studies, weight analyses, or perform sensitivity analysis for effect of low quality. Authors indicated that there were frequently major problems with the primary studies, individually or in aggregate. Our judgment was that the reviewing process was generally good in these reviews, and that conclusions were limited by the number, size, quality and validity of the primary studies.</p> <p>We judged the evidence about 23 of the 25 interventions to be weak. Two reviews had stronger evidence, but with limitations due to methodological heterogeneity or definition of outcomes. No review provided strong evidence of no effect.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Cochrane reviews in palliative care are well performed, but fail to provide good evidence for clinical practice because the primary studies are few in number, small, clinically heterogeneous, and of poor quality and external validity. They are useful in highlighting the weakness of the evidence base and problems in performing trials in palliative care.</p

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.)