Cargando…

A review and survey of policies utilized for interventional pain procedures: a need for consensus

BACKGROUND: Other than the newly published anticoagulation guidelines, there are currently few recommendations to assist pain medicine physicians in determining the safety parameters to follow when performing interventional pain procedures. Little information exists regarding policies for oral intak...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kohan, Lynn, Salajegheh, Reza, Hamill-Ruth, Robin J, Yerra, Sandeep, Butz, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5364016/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28360531
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S126851
_version_ 1782517250644770816
author Kohan, Lynn
Salajegheh, Reza
Hamill-Ruth, Robin J
Yerra, Sandeep
Butz, John
author_facet Kohan, Lynn
Salajegheh, Reza
Hamill-Ruth, Robin J
Yerra, Sandeep
Butz, John
author_sort Kohan, Lynn
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Other than the newly published anticoagulation guidelines, there are currently few recommendations to assist pain medicine physicians in determining the safety parameters to follow when performing interventional pain procedures. Little information exists regarding policies for oral intake, cumulative steroid dose limits, driving restrictions with and without sedation, and routine medication use for interventional procedures. METHODS: A 16-question survey was developed on common policies currently in use for interventional pain procedures. The questionnaire was distributed through the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and American Academy of Pain Medicine. We sought to statistically analyze the range of policies being used by pain medicine physicians and to determine if there are any commonly accepted standards. RESULTS: A total of 337 physicians out of 4037 members responded to our survey with a response rate of 8.4%. A total of 82% of these respondents used a sedative agent while performing an interventional pain procedure. The majority of respondents required drivers after procedures, except after trigger points. A total of 47% indicated that they have an nil per os (NPO) policy for procedures without sedation. A total of 98% reported that they had an anticoagulation policy before an interventional procedure. A total of 17% indicated that the interval between steroid doses was <2 weeks, while 53% indicated that they waited 2–4 weeks between steroid doses. CONCLUSION: Our study has clearly demonstrated a wide variation in the current practice among physicians regarding sedation, NPO status, steroid administration, and the need for designated drivers. There was much higher endorsement of policies regarding anticoagulation. There is an obvious need for evidence-based guidelines for these aspects of interventional pain care to improve patient safety and minimize the risk of adverse events.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5364016
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53640162017-03-30 A review and survey of policies utilized for interventional pain procedures: a need for consensus Kohan, Lynn Salajegheh, Reza Hamill-Ruth, Robin J Yerra, Sandeep Butz, John J Pain Res Original Research BACKGROUND: Other than the newly published anticoagulation guidelines, there are currently few recommendations to assist pain medicine physicians in determining the safety parameters to follow when performing interventional pain procedures. Little information exists regarding policies for oral intake, cumulative steroid dose limits, driving restrictions with and without sedation, and routine medication use for interventional procedures. METHODS: A 16-question survey was developed on common policies currently in use for interventional pain procedures. The questionnaire was distributed through the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and American Academy of Pain Medicine. We sought to statistically analyze the range of policies being used by pain medicine physicians and to determine if there are any commonly accepted standards. RESULTS: A total of 337 physicians out of 4037 members responded to our survey with a response rate of 8.4%. A total of 82% of these respondents used a sedative agent while performing an interventional pain procedure. The majority of respondents required drivers after procedures, except after trigger points. A total of 47% indicated that they have an nil per os (NPO) policy for procedures without sedation. A total of 98% reported that they had an anticoagulation policy before an interventional procedure. A total of 17% indicated that the interval between steroid doses was <2 weeks, while 53% indicated that they waited 2–4 weeks between steroid doses. CONCLUSION: Our study has clearly demonstrated a wide variation in the current practice among physicians regarding sedation, NPO status, steroid administration, and the need for designated drivers. There was much higher endorsement of policies regarding anticoagulation. There is an obvious need for evidence-based guidelines for these aspects of interventional pain care to improve patient safety and minimize the risk of adverse events. Dove Medical Press 2017-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC5364016/ /pubmed/28360531 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S126851 Text en © 2017 Kohan et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Kohan, Lynn
Salajegheh, Reza
Hamill-Ruth, Robin J
Yerra, Sandeep
Butz, John
A review and survey of policies utilized for interventional pain procedures: a need for consensus
title A review and survey of policies utilized for interventional pain procedures: a need for consensus
title_full A review and survey of policies utilized for interventional pain procedures: a need for consensus
title_fullStr A review and survey of policies utilized for interventional pain procedures: a need for consensus
title_full_unstemmed A review and survey of policies utilized for interventional pain procedures: a need for consensus
title_short A review and survey of policies utilized for interventional pain procedures: a need for consensus
title_sort review and survey of policies utilized for interventional pain procedures: a need for consensus
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5364016/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28360531
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S126851
work_keys_str_mv AT kohanlynn areviewandsurveyofpoliciesutilizedforinterventionalpainproceduresaneedforconsensus
AT salajeghehreza areviewandsurveyofpoliciesutilizedforinterventionalpainproceduresaneedforconsensus
AT hamillruthrobinj areviewandsurveyofpoliciesutilizedforinterventionalpainproceduresaneedforconsensus
AT yerrasandeep areviewandsurveyofpoliciesutilizedforinterventionalpainproceduresaneedforconsensus
AT butzjohn areviewandsurveyofpoliciesutilizedforinterventionalpainproceduresaneedforconsensus
AT kohanlynn reviewandsurveyofpoliciesutilizedforinterventionalpainproceduresaneedforconsensus
AT salajeghehreza reviewandsurveyofpoliciesutilizedforinterventionalpainproceduresaneedforconsensus
AT hamillruthrobinj reviewandsurveyofpoliciesutilizedforinterventionalpainproceduresaneedforconsensus
AT yerrasandeep reviewandsurveyofpoliciesutilizedforinterventionalpainproceduresaneedforconsensus
AT butzjohn reviewandsurveyofpoliciesutilizedforinterventionalpainproceduresaneedforconsensus