Assessment and patient selection process for a pain management programme: a case study in specialty care

Abstract

Introduction:

The present study audited the process of assessing and selecting patients for a pain management programme with the aim of reviewing best practice in the light of the latest British Pain Society guidelines for pain management programmes for adults. The guidelines include defined inclusion/exclusion criteria and it was explored how they are used by clinicians providing a pain management service.

Method:

The records of 200 consecutive patients who attended a multidisciplinary assessment for a central London specialist Pain Management Service from September 2014 to December 2014 were audited. The proportions of patients who were offered a programme, were discharged or referred for a different service were calculated. Clinic letters were reviewed to collect information on assessment outcomes, recommendations and inclusion/exclusion criteria used.

Results:

About half the patients (53%) seen for assessment were offered treatment within the service, most frequently the intensive residential programme (30.5%, with an additional 11.6% offered case management first), followed by the five session outpatient programme (8.1%) and a minority was offered individual treatment (2.5%); 44.7% of the patients were discharged following the assessment. The three most frequently used reasons for exclusion were: not ready to engage with the pain management approach (35%), complex psychological or other needs needing to be prioritised (29.5%) and the patient declining a programme (19.3%).

Conclusion:

Reviewing the use of inclusion/exclusion criteria revealed some challenges regarding patient selection. For example, a sizable proportion of patients were still seeking pain reduction and were not open to a self-management approach when this was the recommended treatment for them. Complex patients might need other treatment approaches before they can be considered for a programme. Having a range of pain management options of varying intensities available seems helpful in meeting individual patient need.

Keywords

Pain management programmes inclusion/exclusion criteria attrition rates patient selection assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

The British Pain Society. Guidelines for pain management programmes for adults. Report, The British Pain Society, London, November 2013.

The British Pain Society. Recommended guidelines for pain management programmes for adults. A consensus statement prepared on behalf of the British Pain Society. Report, The British Pain Society, London, 2007.

Dixon

Keefe

Scipio

et al . Psychological interventions for arthritis pain management in adults: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol 2007; 26(3): 241–250.

Knittle

Maes

De Gucht

Psychological interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: examining the role of self-regulation with a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthritis Care Res 2010; 62(10): 1460–1472.

McCracken

Davies

Scott

et al . Can a psychologically based treatment help people to live with chronic pain when they are seeking a procedure to reduce it? Pain Med 2015; 16(3): 451–459.

Ackerman

Buchbinder

Osborne

RH.

Factors limiting participation in arthritis self-management programmes: an exploration of barriers and patient preferences within a randomized controlled trial. Rheumatology 2013; 52(3): 472–479.

Knight

Jamani

Cowburn

Impact of a new care pathway on attendance on a residential chronic pain management programme (PMP). J Pain Manag 2010; 3(2): 131–139.

Gilpin

Keyes

Stahl

et al . Predictors of treatment outcome in contextual cognitive and behavioral therapies for chronic pain: a systematic review. J Pain 2017; 18(10): 1153–1164.

Rayner

Hotopf

Petkova

et al . Depression in patients with chronic pain attending a specialised pain treatment centre: prevalence and impact on health care costs. Pain 2016; 157(7): 1472–1479.

10.

Daut

Cleeland

Flanery

RC.

Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain 1983; 17(2): 197–210.

11.

Smith

Knight

Stewart

et al . Clinical effectiveness of a residential pain management programme – comparing a large recent sample with previously published outcome data. Br J Pain 2016; 10(1): 46–58.

12.

Nevedal

Wang

Oberleitner

et al . Effects of an individually tailored Web-based chronic pain management program on pain severity, psychological health, and functioning. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15(9): e201.

13.

Bender

Radhakrishnan

Diorio

et al . Can pain be managed through the Internet? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Pain 2011; 152(8): 1740–1750.

14.

Eccleston

Fisher

Craig

et al . Psychological therapies (Internet-delivered) for the management of chronic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 2: CD010152.

15.

Macea

Gajos

Daglia Calil

et al . The efficacy of Web-based cognitive behavioral interventions for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain 2010; 11(10): 917–929.

16.

McCracken

Jones

Treatment for chronic pain for adults in the seventh and eighth decades of life: a preliminary study of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Pain Med 2012; 13(7): 861–867.

17.

Nicholas

Asghari

Blyth

et al . Self-management intervention for chronic pain in older adults: a randomised controlled trial. Pain 2013; 154(6): 824–835.

18.

Scott

Daly

et al . Treatment of chronic pain for adults 65 and over: analyses of outcomes and changes in psychological flexibility following interdisciplinary acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Pain Med 2017; 18(2): 252–264.