The neglected role of distress in pain management: qualitative research on a gastrointestinal ward

Background and aims: Pain management for hospital inpatients remains suboptimal. Previously identified barriers to optimal pain management include staff communication difficulties, confusion around pain management roles and a lack of suitable resources for clinical staff. The emotional, relational and contextual complexities of gastrointestinal (GI) pain create particular challenges for frontline clinical staff attempting to implement a biopsychosocial approach to its management. The current study took place over 2 years, comprised an ethnographic and a feedback phase, and aimed to examine pain management processes with clinical staff in order to generate hypotheses and initiatives for improvement. This paper focuses on two overarching themes identified in the ethnographic phase of the study, centred on the neglected role of both staff and patient distress in GI pain management. Methods: Grounded theory and thematic analysis methods were used as part of action research, which involves collaborative working with clinical staff. The study took place on a 60 bed GI ward in a university hospital in London. Participants were clinical staff who were either ward-based or involved in the care of particular patients. This latter group included doctors, nurses, psychologists and physiotherapists from the Acute and Complex Pain Teams. Qualitative data on pain management processes was gathered from staff interviews, consultation groups, and observations of patient-staff interactions. Recruitment was purposive and collaborative in that early participants suggested targets and staff groups for subsequent enquiry. Following the identification of initial ethnographic themes, further analysis and the use of existing literature led to the identification of two overarching pain management processes. As such the results are divided into three sections: (i) illustration of initial ethnographic themes, (ii) summary of relevant theory used, (iii) exploration of hypothesised overarching processes. Results: Initially, two consultation groups, five nursing staff and five junior doctors, provided key issues that were included in subsequent interviews (n=18) and observations (n=5). Initial ethnographic themes were divided into challenges and resources, reflecting the emergent structure of interviews and observations. Drawing on attachment, psychodynamic and evolutionary theories, themes were then regrouped around two overarching processes, centred on the neglected role of distress in pain management. The first process elucidates the lack of recognition during pain assessment of the emotional impact of patient distress on staff decision-making and pain management practice. The second process demonstrates that, as a consequence of resultant staff distress, communication between staff groups was fraught and resources, such as expert team referral and pharmacotherapy, appeared to function, at times, to protect staff rather than to help patients. Interpersonal skills used by staff to relieve patient distress were largely outside systems for pain care. Conclusions: Findings suggest that identified “barriers” to optimal pain management likely serve an important defensive function for staff and organisations. Implications: Unless the impact of patient distress on staff is recognised and addressed within the system, these barriers will persist

Trigger point manual therapy for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain in adults

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine the effectiveness of trigger point manual therapy for treating chronic non-cancer pain in adults

Interventions for treating persistent pain in survivors of torture

Background: Persistent (chronic) pain is a frequent complaint in survivors of torture, particularly but not exclusively pain in the musculoskeletal system. Torture survivors may have no access to health care; where they do, they may not be recognised when they present, and the care available often falls short of their needs. There is a tendency in state and non-governmental organisations' services to focus on mental health, with poor understanding of persistent pain, while survivors may have many other legal, welfare, and social problems that take precedence over health care. Objectives: To assess the efficacy of interventions for treating persistent pain and associated problems in survivors of torture. Search methods: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS, and PsycINFO, from database inception to 1 February 2017. We also searched trials registers and grey literature databases. Selection criteria: RCTs of interventions of any type (medical, physical, psychological) compared with any alternative intervention or no intervention, and with a pain outcome. Studies needed to have at least 10 participants in each arm for inclusion. Data collection and analysis: We identified 3578 titles in total after deduplication; we selected 24 full papers to assess for eligibility. We requested data from two completed trials without published results. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) and effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Main results: Three small published studies (88 participants) met the inclusion criteria, but one had been retracted from publication because of ethical problems concerned with confidentiality and financial irregularities. Since these did not affect the data, the study was retained in this review. Despite the search including any intervention, only two types were represented in the eligible studies: two trials used cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with biofeedback versus waiting list on unspecified persistent pain (58 participants completed treatment), and one examined the effect of complex manual therapy versus self-treatment on low back pain (30 participants completed treatment). Excluded studies were largely either not RCTs or did not report pain as an outcome. There was no difference for the outcome of pain relief at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 58 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -1.23 to 1.12) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.23) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial also reported no difference between complex manual therapy and self-treatment (30 participants; SMD -0.48, 95% CI -9.95 to 0.35) (very low quality evidence). Two studies reported dropouts, one with partial information on reasons; none of the studies reported adverse effects. There was no information from any study on the outcomes of use of analgesics or quality of life. Reduction in disability showed no difference at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 57 participants; SMD -0.39, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.39) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD 0, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.74) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial reported superiority of complex manual therapy over self-treatment for reducing disability (30 participants; SMD -1.10, 95% CI - 1.88 to -0.33) (very low quality evidence). Reduction in distress showed no difference at the end of treatment between CBT and waiting list (two trials, 58 participants; SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.60) (very low quality evidence); one of these reported a three-month follow-up with no difference between intervention and comparison (28 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.99) (very low quality evidence). The manual therapy trial reported superiority of complex manual therapy over self-treatment for reducing distress (30 participants; SMD -1.26, 95% CI - 2.06 to -0.47) (very low quality evidence). The risk of bias was considered high given the small number of trials, small size of trials, and the likelihood that each was underpowered for the comparisons it reported. We primarily downgraded the quality of the evidence due to small numbers in trials, lack of intention-to-treat analyses, high unaccounted dropout, lack of detail on study methods, and CIs around effect sizes that included no effect, benefit, and harm. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any intervention for persistent pain in survivors of torture

Psychological therapies for the prevention of migraine in adults [Protocol]

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess beneficial and adverse effects of psychological treatment versus active alternative treatment or no treatment in adults with migraine, using methods that allow comparison with reviews of psychological interventions for other painful conditions

Self-managing postoperative pain with the use of a novel, interactive device: a proof of concept study

Background: Pain is commonly experienced following surgical procedures. Suboptimal management is multifactorial. Objectives. The primary objective was to assess whether patients used a device (Navimed) to self-report pain over and above a normal baseline of observations. Secondary outcome measures included comparison of pain scores and patient use of and feedback on the device. Methods: In a prospective randomized controlled trial, elective gynaecological surgery patients received standard postoperative pain care or standard care plus the Navimed, which allowed them to self-report pain and offered interactive self-help options. Results: 52 female patients, 26 in each of device and standard groups, did not differ in the frequency of nurse-documented pain scores or mean pain scores provided to nurses. The device group additionally reported pain on the device (means 18.50 versus 11.90 pain ratings per day, t(32) = 2.75, p < 0.001) that was significantly worse than reported to nurses but retrospectively rated significantly less anxiety. 80% of patients found the device useful. Discussion and Conclusion: This study demonstrates that patients used the Navimed to report pain and to help manage it. Further work is required to investigate the difference in pain scores reported and to develop more sophisticated software