Cargando…

Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach—The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool

PURPOSE: Pain is suboptimally managed in patients with cancer. We aimed to compare the effect of a policy of adding a clinician-delivered bedside pain assessment and management tool (Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool [EPAT]) to usual care (UC) versus UC alone on pain outcomes. PATIENTS A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fallon, Marie, Walker, Jane, Colvin, Lesley, Rodriguez, Aryelly, Murray, Gordon, Sharpe, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society of Clinical Oncology 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5929219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29543567
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.76.1825
_version_ 1783319363178201088
author Fallon, Marie
Walker, Jane
Colvin, Lesley
Rodriguez, Aryelly
Murray, Gordon
Sharpe, Michael
author_facet Fallon, Marie
Walker, Jane
Colvin, Lesley
Rodriguez, Aryelly
Murray, Gordon
Sharpe, Michael
author_sort Fallon, Marie
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Pain is suboptimally managed in patients with cancer. We aimed to compare the effect of a policy of adding a clinician-delivered bedside pain assessment and management tool (Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool [EPAT]) to usual care (UC) versus UC alone on pain outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a two-arm, parallel group, cluster randomized (1:1) trial, we observed pain outcomes in 19 cancer centers in the United Kingdom and then randomly assigned the centers to either implement EPAT or to continue UC. The primary outcome was change in the percentage of study participants in each center with a clinically significant (≥ 2 point) improvement in worst pain (using the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form) from admission to 3 to 5 days after admission. Secondary outcomes included quality of analgesic prescribing and opioid-related adverse effects. RESULTS: Ten centers were randomly assigned to EPAT, and nine were assigned to UC. We enrolled 1,921 patients and obtained outcome data from 93% (n = 1,795). Participants (mean age, 60 years; 49% women) had a variety of cancer types. For centers randomly assigned to EPAT, the percentage of participants with a clinically significant improvement in worst pain increased from 47.7% to 54.1%, and for those randomly assigned to continue UC, this percentage decreased from 50.6% to 46.4%. The absolute difference was 10.7% (95% CI, 0.2% to 21.1%; P = .046) and it increased to 15.4% (95% CI, 5.8% to 25.0%; P = .004) when two centers that failed to implement EPAT were excluded. EPAT centers had greater improvements in prescribing practice and in the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form pain subscale score. Other pain and distress outcomes and opioid adverse effects did not differ between EPAT and UC. CONCLUSION: A systematic integrated approach improves pain outcomes for inpatients in cancer centers without increasing opioid adverse effects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5929219
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher American Society of Clinical Oncology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59292192019-05-01 Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach—The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool Fallon, Marie Walker, Jane Colvin, Lesley Rodriguez, Aryelly Murray, Gordon Sharpe, Michael J Clin Oncol ORIGINAL REPORTS PURPOSE: Pain is suboptimally managed in patients with cancer. We aimed to compare the effect of a policy of adding a clinician-delivered bedside pain assessment and management tool (Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool [EPAT]) to usual care (UC) versus UC alone on pain outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a two-arm, parallel group, cluster randomized (1:1) trial, we observed pain outcomes in 19 cancer centers in the United Kingdom and then randomly assigned the centers to either implement EPAT or to continue UC. The primary outcome was change in the percentage of study participants in each center with a clinically significant (≥ 2 point) improvement in worst pain (using the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form) from admission to 3 to 5 days after admission. Secondary outcomes included quality of analgesic prescribing and opioid-related adverse effects. RESULTS: Ten centers were randomly assigned to EPAT, and nine were assigned to UC. We enrolled 1,921 patients and obtained outcome data from 93% (n = 1,795). Participants (mean age, 60 years; 49% women) had a variety of cancer types. For centers randomly assigned to EPAT, the percentage of participants with a clinically significant improvement in worst pain increased from 47.7% to 54.1%, and for those randomly assigned to continue UC, this percentage decreased from 50.6% to 46.4%. The absolute difference was 10.7% (95% CI, 0.2% to 21.1%; P = .046) and it increased to 15.4% (95% CI, 5.8% to 25.0%; P = .004) when two centers that failed to implement EPAT were excluded. EPAT centers had greater improvements in prescribing practice and in the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form pain subscale score. Other pain and distress outcomes and opioid adverse effects did not differ between EPAT and UC. CONCLUSION: A systematic integrated approach improves pain outcomes for inpatients in cancer centers without increasing opioid adverse effects. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2018-05-01 2018-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5929219/ /pubmed/29543567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.76.1825 Text en © 2018 by American Society of Clinical Oncology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle ORIGINAL REPORTS
Fallon, Marie
Walker, Jane
Colvin, Lesley
Rodriguez, Aryelly
Murray, Gordon
Sharpe, Michael
Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach—The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool
title Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach—The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool
title_full Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach—The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool
title_fullStr Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach—The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool
title_full_unstemmed Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach—The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool
title_short Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach—The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool
title_sort pain management in cancer center inpatients: a cluster randomized trial to evaluate a systematic integrated approach—the edinburgh pain assessment and management tool
topic ORIGINAL REPORTS
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5929219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29543567
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.76.1825
work_keys_str_mv AT fallonmarie painmanagementincancercenterinpatientsaclusterrandomizedtrialtoevaluateasystematicintegratedapproachtheedinburghpainassessmentandmanagementtool
AT walkerjane painmanagementincancercenterinpatientsaclusterrandomizedtrialtoevaluateasystematicintegratedapproachtheedinburghpainassessmentandmanagementtool
AT colvinlesley painmanagementincancercenterinpatientsaclusterrandomizedtrialtoevaluateasystematicintegratedapproachtheedinburghpainassessmentandmanagementtool
AT rodriguezaryelly painmanagementincancercenterinpatientsaclusterrandomizedtrialtoevaluateasystematicintegratedapproachtheedinburghpainassessmentandmanagementtool
AT murraygordon painmanagementincancercenterinpatientsaclusterrandomizedtrialtoevaluateasystematicintegratedapproachtheedinburghpainassessmentandmanagementtool
AT sharpemichael painmanagementincancercenterinpatientsaclusterrandomizedtrialtoevaluateasystematicintegratedapproachtheedinburghpainassessmentandmanagementtool
AT painmanagementincancercenterinpatientsaclusterrandomizedtrialtoevaluateasystematicintegratedapproachtheedinburghpainassessmentandmanagementtool