Buscemi Valentina, Chicken Joe, Mahy Tim, Knight Lucie, Scott Whitney
INPUT Pain Management Unit, , London, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustUK.
Health Psychology Section, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, , London, King's College LondonUK.
Br J Pain. 2023 Jun;17(3):226-238. doi: 10.1177/20494637221147200. Epub 2022 Dec 23.
The provision of pain management programmes (PMPs) changed substantially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with virtual delivery implemented in many services. Little is known about patient selection processes for virtual PMPs and how this might differ from in-person programmes. The aim of this audit was to document the patient selection process for PMPs at a speciality pain service prior to and during the pandemic.
This retrospective audit used data from consecutive patients attending a multidisciplinary assessment to determine the suitability of a PMP. Anonymized data were extracted from assessment letters and hospital records in the months prior to the pandemic (n =168) and during the start of the pandemic once the service began delivering virtual PMPs (n =171).
For the standard pain management pathway, most patients were offered a PMP option within the service before and during the pandemic, although a greater proportion of patients were offered treatment during the pandemic. For the neuromodulation pathway, most patients were offered a pre-neuromodulation PMP option, and this was similar before and during the pandemic. Psychosocial complexities and unwillingness to engage in a pain management approach that does not principally focus on pain reduction were the most common reasons that patients were not offered a programme.
This audit points to a pattern of more inclusive assessment outcomes within our service over time and particularly during the pandemic. Offering a range of in-person and virtual PMPs can meet a wider range of patient need. Research is needed to understand how to best assess and match patients with the breadth of treatment delivery formats now available.
为应对新冠疫情,疼痛管理项目(PMPs)的提供方式发生了重大变化,许多服务采用了虚拟交付。对于虚拟PMPs的患者选择过程以及其与面对面项目的差异知之甚少。本次审计的目的是记录疫情之前和期间一家专科疼痛服务机构PMPs的患者选择过程。
本次回顾性审计使用了连续参加多学科评估的患者数据,以确定PMP的适用性。在疫情之前的几个月(n = 168)和疫情开始后该服务开始提供虚拟PMPs时(n = 171),从评估信和医院记录中提取了匿名数据。
对于标准疼痛管理途径,在疫情之前和期间,大多数患者在该服务机构内都获得了PMP选项,尽管在疫情期间有更大比例的患者获得了治疗。对于神经调节途径,大多数患者获得了神经调节前的PMP选项,这在疫情之前和期间是相似的。心理社会复杂性和不愿意参与主要不专注于减轻疼痛的疼痛管理方法是患者未被提供项目的最常见原因。
本次审计指出,随着时间的推移,尤其是在疫情期间,我们服务机构的评估结果呈现出更具包容性的模式。提供一系列面对面和虚拟的PMPs可以满足更广泛的患者需求。需要进行研究以了解如何最好地评估患者并使其与现有的广泛治疗交付形式相匹配。