To investigate the effect of multidisciplinary interventions on pain management in cancer inpatients.
Four hundred thirty eight patients with cancer pain, who performed the multidisciplinary intervention were recruited. Before and after intervention, the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) score as the primary endpoints and QOL scores as the secondary endpoint were all evaluated. To investigate the factors that led to different responses to multidisciplinary interventions, patients were classified as non-responders or responders.
Finally, 92 patients (63 male and 29 female) scheduled for cancer pain management by inter-professional team were studied. After individualized multidisciplinary therapy, both pain and symptom severity was improved, as demonstrated by lowered BPI worst and average pain scores, as well as symptom severity score measured by MDASI (P = .017, P = .003, and P = .011, respectively). The proportion of patients with mild pain increased regarding the BPI worst and average pain at baseline and after treatment (P < .05). The QOL analyses showed multidisciplinary interventions could significantly improve the function and symptom scores (P < .001). More patients in responder group received chemotherapy (58, 70.7%, P = .003), while fewer received mini-invasive therapy (6, 7.32%, P = .011).
Multidisciplinary interventions had certain beneficial effect on cancer pain management, especially in patients with moderate or severe pain.
Background: Continuous subcutaneous infusion (CSCI) via ambulatory infusion pump (AIP) is a valuable method of pain control in palliative care. When using CSCI, low-dose methadone as add-on to other opioids might be an option in complex pain situations. This study aimed to investigate the effects, and adverse effects, of CSCI for pain control in dying patients, with particular interest in methadone use.
Methods: his was an observational cohort study. Imminently dying patients with pain, admitted to specialized palliative inpatient wards and introduced on CSCI, were monitored daily by staff for symptoms (Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale - IPOS), sedation (Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale – RASS), performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group - ECOG) and delirium (Confusion Assessment Method - CAM).
Results: Ninety-three patients with a median survival of 4 days were included. Of the 47 patients who survived =3 days, the proportion of patients with severe/overwhelming pain decreased from 45 to 19% (p < 0.001) after starting CSCI, with only a moderate increase in morphine equivalent daily dose of opioids (MEDD). Alertness was marginally decreased (1 point on the 10-point RASS scale, p = 0.001), whereas performance status and prevalence of delirium, regardless of age, remained unchanged.
Both patients with methadone as add-on (MET, n = 13) and patients with only other opioids (NMET, n = 34), improved in pain control (p < 0.05 and 0.001, respectively), despite that MET patients had higher pain scores at baseline (p < 0.05) and were on a higher MEDD (240 mg vs.133 mg). No serious adverse effects demanding treatment stop were reported.
Conclusions: CSCI via AIP is an effective way to reduce pain in dying patients without increased adverse effects. Add-on methadone may be beneficial in patients with severe complex pain.
Purpose: While the 0–10 pain scale is often used to assess treatment response, it may not accurately reflect change in pain over time. The purpose of this study is to correlate pain improvement using the 0–10 pain scale to patients’ perceived improvement in pain following palliative radiation therapy (RT), and to qualitatively characterize themes of pain assessment.
Methods: Patients age = 20 receiving RT for spinal metastases were enrolled. Patients rated their pain (0–10) at the treatment site at RT start, and 1 and 4 weeks post-RT completion. At 1 and 4 weeks post-RT, patients reported their perceived percent improvement in pain (pPIP) (0–100%), which was compared to calculated percent improvement in pain (cPIP) based on the 0–10 pain scores. At 4 weeks post-RT, 20 randomly selected patients participated in a qualitative pain assessment.
Results: Sixty-four patients treated at 1–2 sites were analyzed. At 1 week post-RT completion, 53.7% (36/67) reported pPIP within 10 percentage points of cPIP, 32.8% (22/67) reported pPIP > 10 percentage points higher than cPIP, and 13.4% (9/67) reported pPIP > 10 percentage points lower than cPIP. Similar degrees of discordance were seen at 4 weeks post-RT. Qualitative analysis revealed five themes: pain quality (n = 19), activities (n = 9), function (n = 7), medication use (n = 2), and radiation side effects (n = 1).
Conclusions: About half of patients reported a pPIP substantially disparate from their cPIP, and the change in pain measured by the 0–10 scale tended to underestimate the degree of perceived pain improvement. Multiple themes were identified in qualitative analysis of pain response.
The prevalence of cancer-related pain is 64% among patients with metastatic, advanced, or terminal cancer, 59% among patients undergoing anticancer treatment, and 33% among patients who completed curative treatment. According to the World Health Organization cancer pain relief guidelines, opioid analgesics are the mainstay analgesic therapy in addition to conventional first-step analgesics, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen. The indications for strong opioids have recently been expanded to include mild-to-moderate pain in addition to moderate-to-severe pain. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines emphasize that realistic expectations should be weighed against potential serious harm from opioids, rather than relying on the unrealized long-term benefits of these drugs. Therefore, treatment strategies for both cancer-related chronic or acute pain have been unfortunately deviated from opioid analgesics. The barriers hindering adequate cancer-related pain management with opioid analgesics are related to the inadequate knowledge of opioid analgesics (e.g., effective dose, adverse effects, and likelihood of addiction or tolerance). To achieve adequate opioid availability, these barriers should be overcome in a clinically suitable manner. Genetic assessments could play an important role in overcoming challenges in opioid management. To balance the improvement in opioid availability and the prevention of opioid misuse and addiction, the following two considerations concerning opioids and genetic polymorphisms warrant attention: (A) pain severity, opioid sensitivity, and opioid tolerance; and (B) vulnerability to opioid dependence and addiction.
The "opioid crisis" stemming from overprescribing of prescription opioids describes an iatrogenic situation which has resulted in a rise in opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose deaths. Many of these patients suffer from chronic non-cancer pain syndromes (CNCP) who have been injudiciously treated with opioids. Some patients with CNCP are treated successfully with opioids in accordance with modern guidelines. There is a very complex, small group of patients with CNCP who require higher than recommended dosages of opioids when other modalities and treatments have failed. We describe such a patient and believe that there is a subset of patients with unremitting suffering from chronic pain which we have called end-stage chronic pain (ESCP). These patients, despite receiving expert chronic pain care, often require high doses of opioids and suffer a dramatic decline in quality of life (QOL), function and an increase in their suffering when their opioids are tapered or discontinued. We have responded to the treatment of this group of patients by critically examining our approach to the use of opioids for their pain and attempting to reconcile high dose opioids in the setting of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines. We describe a patient with severe chronic pain from congenital spinal disease who experienced increased pain and suffering when his opioids were tapered. We will discuss our approach to this patient and in doing so discuss the concept of ESCP and proposed criteria for the use of high dose opioids in such patients.
DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.
PURPOSE: Opioids are crucial to the relief of pain and dyspnea experienced by patients dying in the hospital setting; however, there are concerns about the association of opioid dosage with hastened death via opioid-induced respiratory depression, and there is little published evidence regarding the association between opioid dose escalation and time to death in the inpatient comfort measures only (CMO) population.
METHODS: The medical records of adult patients admitted to 2 hospitals who had an active CMO order at the time of death and received opioid dose escalations after CMO pronouncement were assessed in a retrospective cohort study. Patients were categorized into higher and lower opioid dose escalation groups according to an institutional palliative care symptom guide. A Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to test the associations between dose escalation group, patient sex, opioid naivety, palliative care consultation, and opioid dosage after CMO pronouncement (independent variables) and time to death (dependent variable).
RESULTS: In the 71-patient cohort, 39 patients (54.9%) were male and 32 (45.1%) were female. The mean (SD) age of patients was 67.2 (16.6) years. Higher dose escalation (n = 46, 64.8%) was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in survival time compared to lower dose escalation (n = 25, 35.2%), with a mean difference in time to death of 19.8 hours (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-2.97). Receipt of a palliative care consult (n = 56, 78.9%) during the final hospital visit was associated with increased survival time (mean difference, 20.1 hours; HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16-0.63).
CONCLUSION: Time to death in an inpatient CMO population was not significantly associated with the degree of opioid dose escalation.
BACKGROUND: The goal of adequate pain control becomes increasingly salient for children with cancer and their families as the patients approach the end of life. Methadone is one option that is particularly desirable in end-of-life care given its long duration of action and NMDA antagonism that may help in controlling pain refractory to conventional opioids. The purpose of this study was to describe a single institution's experience with methadone for the treatment of cancer pain in pediatric end-of-life care.
METHODS: This retrospective, observational, single-center study included all patients during a 9-year period who died in the inpatient setting and were receiving methadone in their last 30 days of life.
RESULTS: Twenty patients were identified, 18 (90%) of whom received methadone for nociceptive pain. The median duration of methadone use was 32 days (range 2-323 days). Methadone doses ranged from 0.09 to 7.76 mg/kg per day. There were no instances of discontinuing methadone due to an increased QTc interval. No episodes of torsades de pointes were observed.
CONCLUSION: In patients with pediatric cancer who are nearing the end of life, methadone is a valuable adjunctive therapy to treat nociceptive and neuropathic pain and to prevent opioid-induced hyperalgesia and opioid tolerance. An individualized approach to dosage and route should be considered based on specific clinical circumstances.
Background: The opioid epidemic has spurred investigations for nonopioid options, yet limited research persists on medical marijuana's (MMJ) efficacy in managing cancer-related symptoms.
Objective: We sought to characterize MMJ's role on symptomatic relief and opioid consumption in the oncologic population.
Design: Retrospective chart review of MMJ-certified oncology patients was performed. Divided patients into MMJ use [MMJ(+)] versus no use [MMJ(-)], and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS)-reported pain cohorts: “mild-moderate” versus “severe.”
Measurements: Medical records were reviewed for ESAS, to measure physical and emotional symptoms, and opiate consumption, converted into morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Minimal clinically important differences were determined. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests determined statistical significance between MMJ-certification and most recent palliative care visit.
Results: Identified 232 patients [95/232 MMJ(-); 137/232 MMJ(+)]. Pain, physical and total ESAS significantly improved for total MMJ(-) and MMJ(+); however, only MMJ(+) significantly improved emotional ESAS. MMJ(-) opioid consumption increased by 23% (97.5–120 mg/day MME, p = 0.004), while it remained constant (45–45 mg/day MME, p = 0.522) in MMJ(+). Physical and total ESAS improved in mild-moderate-MMJ(-) and MMJ(+). Pain and emotional symptoms worsened in MMJ(-); while MMJ(+)'s pain remained unchanged and emotional symptoms improved. MMJ(-) opioid consumption increased by 29% (90–126 mg/day MME, p = 0.012); while MMJ(+)'s decreased by 33% (45–30 mg/day MME, p = 0.935). Pain, physical, emotional, and total ESAS scores improved in severe-MMJ(-) and MMJ(+); opioid consumption reduced by 22% in MMJ(-) (135–106 mg/day MME, p = 0.124) and 33% in MMJ(+) (90–60 mg/day MME, p = 0.421).
Conclusions: MMJ(+) improved oncology patients' ESAS scores despite opioid dose reductions and should be considered a viable adjuvant therapy for palliative management.
BACKGROUND: Local radiation therapy (RT) can provide pain relief and reduce bleeding resulting from pleural or peritoneal dissemination of primary tumors. However, the optimal RT exposure dose for such tumors is unclear and the response rate is unknown. In this study, we examined the effectiveness of palliative RT for pleural or peritoneal disseminated tumors to determine the optimal dose in these patients.
METHODS: The data of 22 patients with pleural- or peritoneal-disseminated tumors who were treated with local RT at our institution between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: Among these patients, 9 (40.9%) had pleural tumors, 13 (59.1%) had peritoneal tumors and 2 had tumors in the peritoneum and umbilicus. The most common primary tumors were lung (22.8%) and pancreatic cancer (18.2%). RT was mainly administered for pain alleviation (72.7%). Three patients (13.6%) received RT for hemostasis. Thirteen patients (59.1%) received a regimen of 30 Gy/10 fractions (fr), with the total dosage for all patients ranging from 27 to 56 Gy. No grade 2 or higher RT-related adverse events occurred. Three and four patients obtained complete and partial responses, respectively. The timing of the measurement of response to pain relief ranged from 0 to 232 (median, 21) days upon completion of RT. Overall response to pain relief occurred in nine of 16 patients (56.3%) with pain before RT. Hemostasis was confirmed in 2 of the 3 patients (66.7%) with bleeding before RT. Twelve of 20 (60%) patients with symptoms before RT responded to RT. Disease-specific survival (DSS) time after RT ranged from 1 to 656 (median, 106) days.
CONCLUSIONS: Prompt palliative administration of RT to patients with advanced disease to alleviate pain from disseminated tumors may achieve therapeutic efficacy.
The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group guidelines on palliative care aspects in cancer pain in adults provide a structured, stepwise approach which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide the patients with a minimally acceptable quality of life. The guidelines have been developed based on the available literature and evidence, to suit the needs, patient population, and situations in India. A questionnaire based on the key elements of each sub draft addressing certain inconclusive areas where evidence was lacking was made available on the ISSP website and circulated by E-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care (IAPC) members. In a cancer care setting, approaches toward managing pain vary between ambulatory setting, home care setting, acute inpatient setting, and end-of-life care in hospice setting. We aim to expound the cancer pain management approaches in these settings. In an ambulatory palliative care setting, the WHO analgesic step ladder is used for cancer pain management. The patients with cancer pain require admission for acute inpatient palliative care unit for poorly controlled pain in ambulatory and home care settings, rapid opioid titration, titration of difficult drugs such as methadone, acute pain crisis, pain neuromodulation, and pain interventions. In a palliative home care setting, the cancer pain is usually assessed and managed by nurses and primary physicians with a limited input from the specialist physicians. In patients with cancer at the end of life, the pain should be assessed at least once a day. Moreover, physicians should be trained in assessing patients with pain who are unable to verbalize or have cognitive impairment.
BACKGROUND: A large number of the hospice patients have been reported to be with symptoms of pain. Thus, managing the patient's pain is one aspect of hospice care provision. The delivery of pain care services could be facilitated through effective communication. However, little has been done to explore the interactional details of the delivery of pain care services in palliative care.
METHODS: Conversation analysis is a useful method to explore the interactional details of interaction by hospice care providers and terminally ill patients. Using the method of Conversation Analysis (CA), this study aims to demonstrate how the hospice care provider employs different types of interactional practices to address the patient's pain concerns. The data showed in this study are collected from the Alexander St website http://ctiv.alexanderstreet.com , an educational resource presenting a large collection of psycho-therapeutic videos.
RESULTS: In this study, an illustrative analysis is demonstrated to show the potential of conversation analysis for research on pain talk in palliative care. It has been shown that conversation analysis could contribute to unfolding the interactional details regarding "pain talk" in hospice care settings. Specifically, conversation analysis could provide a detailed description and interpretation of the conversational practices, which are used to construct hospice care provider participation in delivering pain talk. In addition, conversation analysis could also demonstrate the interactional resources by which patients disclose their experiences of physical or spiritual pain to the hospice care provider and the way how the hospice care provider responds to the patient's troubles talk or feelings talk.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies five types of interactional resources which are used to deal with the patient's pain concerns in hospice care setting. A conversation analytical study of pain talk in hospice care could provide a turn-by-turn description of how the hospice care provider communicates with the terminally ill patient in terms of the patient's pain concerns. The findings in this study could inform how the hospice care provider initiates, delivers and develops a pain talk with the terminally ill patient effectively.
PURPOSE: To review and summarize the most frequent medications and dosages used during withholding and withdrawal of life-prolonging measures in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Virtual Health Library from inception through March 2019. We considered any study evaluating pharmaceutical interventions for pain management during the withholding or withdrawing of life support in adult critically ill patients at the end-of-life. Two independent investigators performed the screening and data extraction. We pooled data on utilization rate of analgesic and sedative drugs and summarized the dosing between the moment prior to withholding or withdrawal of life support and the moment before death.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted in the United States (38%), Canada (31%), and the Netherlands (31%). Eleven studies were single-cohort and twelve had a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of less than 7. The mean age of the patients ranged from 59 to 71 years, 59-100% were mechanically ventilated, and 47-100% of the patients underwent life support withdrawal. The most commonly used opioid and sedative were morphine [utilization rate 60% (95% CI 48-71%)] and midazolam [utilization rate 28% (95% CI 23-32%)], respectively. Doses increased during the end-of-life process (pooled mean increase in the dose of morphine: 2.6 mg/h, 95% CI 1.2-4).
CONCLUSIONS: Pain control is centered on opioids and adjunctive benzodiazepines, with dosages exceeding those recommended by guidelines. Despite consistency among guidelines, there is significant heterogeneity among practices in end-of-life care.
Les soins palliatifs demandent de plus en plus de compétences médicales, soignantes, humaines et éthiques, afin d’asseoir leur légitimité dans des domaines de plus en plus pointus de la médecine – réanimation, néonatalogie, cancérologie, gériatrie – ainsi que dans la diversité des prises en charge, y compris au domicile ou en EPHAD.
Dans ce contexte de développement des formations et d’élargissement des champs de compétences de la pratique palliative, cette 5e édition du manuel offre :
-les indispensables connaissances thérapeutiques ;
-les outils, à destination des professionnels en vue d’acquérir une compétence clinique pour la rencontre et l’accompagnement humain, psychique et relationnelle de la personne malade ;
-une contextualisation de la pratique des soins palliatifs dans leur dimension sociale, sanitaire et politique ;
-des jalons pédagogiques pour le développement des soins palliatifs dans leur dimension pédagogique et de recherche.
CONTEXT: Patients with cancer face symptoms due to disease and treatment, and pain is common and complex. The opioid crisis may complicate patients' and clinicians' experiences of managing pain in cancer care.
OBJECTIVES: In our study of perceptions and experiences with palliative care at an outpatient cancer center, we examined communication around symptom management throughout cancer care, and pain and its management emerged as particularly salient. The objective of this paper is to describe, from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and oncology healthcare professionals, the role of palliative care in navigating the complicated dynamics of pain management amidst the opioid crisis.
METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study with grounded theory components was designed to investigate experiences with and perceptions of specialist palliative care and symptom management, including pain. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and focused coding identified themes related to pain and pain management from all three perspectives.
RESULTS: 44 patients, caregivers, and non-palliative care healthcare professionals completed interviews. Patients with cancer and their caregivers had many concerns about pain management and were specifically concerned about opioid use and stigma. For patients, palliative care improved pain management and helped to de-stigmatize appropriate pain management. Oncology clinicians reported that partnering with palliative care facilitated complex pain management and also provided moral support around difficult opioid recommendations for patients.
CONCLUSION: Palliative care offers the potential to uniquely support both patients and other oncology professionals in optimally navigating the complexity around pain management for cancer care in the midst of the opioid crisis.
Background: Patients with cancer-related pain use opioids for nociceptive pain, while gabapentinoids are common to treat neuropathic pain. The simultaneous use of opioids with gabapentinoids has been associated with an increased risk of opioid-related death.
Objectives: Determine the frequency of combined use of gabapentinoids among patients receiving opioids for cancer-related pain. We also examined if concomitant use of opioids and gabapentinoids together was associated with increased scores of fatigue and drowsiness on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) compared to patients on opioids.
Design: Retrospective study of patients on opioids and opioids plus gabapentinoids at their third visit to the outpatient Supportive Care Center.
Results: We found that 48% (508/1059) of patients were on opioids. Of these patients, 51% (257/508) were on opioids only, and 49% (251/508) were on opioids plus gabapentinoids. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) morphine equivalent daily dose for patients on opioids was 75 (45, 138) mg, and opioids plus gabapentinoids was 68 (38, 150) mg (p = 0.94). The median (IQR) gabapentinoid equivalent daily dose was 900 (300, 1200) mg. The median (IQR) for ESAS-fatigue in patients on opioids was 5 (3, 7), and opioids plus gabapentinoids was 5 (3, 7) (p = 0.27). The median (IQR) for ESAS-drowsiness in patients on opioids was 3 (0, 5), and opioids plus gabapentinoids was 3 (0, 6) (p = 0.11).
Conclusion: Almost 50% of advanced cancer patients receiving opioids for pain were exposed to gabapentinoids. Maximal efforts should be made to minimize potential complications from the concomitant use of opioids with gabapentinoids.
Background: pain is a common symptom of head and neck cancers. In some instances, pain may not resolve with conventional modalities and become refractory. Chemical neurolysis is a technique that utilizes chemical neurolytic agents to temporarily denervate a targeted nerve and provide relief in pain-related symptoms. The aim of this investigation was to determine the effectiveness, safety, and predictors of chemical neurolysis procedures for management of refractory head and neck cancer-related pain.
Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent chemical neurolysis procedure in the regions of head and neck for management of head and neck cancer-related pain was conducted between November 2017 and November 2018. All adult male and female patients who had undergone chemical neurolysis procedure in the head and neck region for management of refractory head and neck related pain, in Orofacial Pain Clinic, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center were included in the investigation.
Results: Among 33 participants enrolled, 72.7% of participants experienced 75% or greater relief in pain at the 1-month follow-up. However, 9.1% reported experiencing an adverse effect following neurolysis. A statistically significant association was found between neurolysis effectiveness and chronicity of pain.
Conclusions: Chemical neurolysis can provide significant relief to patients with refractory head and neck cancer-related pain as an adjunctive therapy. However, it was found to be associated with mild risk of manageable adverse effects. Shorter chronicity of pain was found to be associated with successful outcome.
Pain is a common symptom leading to referrals to specialized home palliative care (SHPC) services and is known to affect patients’ quality of life. To date, little is known about the impact of referral source on its management. To assess changes to pain medication profile in the course of SHPC and to identify potential differences in relation to referral source. This exploratory study is a retrospective analysis of 501 electronic medical records of a SHPC team in Germany. This included the assessment of baseline pain medication profiles according to the WHO analgesic ladder and changes to analgesic treatment in the course of SHPC with respect to referral source. At the time of admission, 77.4% of patients referred by a hospital and 78.8% of patients referred by the outpatient sector received a fixed analgesic regimen. In all, 61.9% of the inpatient group versus 62.9% of the outpatient group were treated with opioids, and 79.0% received modifications to pain medication at one point in time following admission. Thereby, patients referred by the outpatient sector received significantly earlier modifications and more supplementations of pain medication. Our study suggests positive development in the prescription of opioid analgesics compared to earlier studies in Germany. On the one hand, it highlights the relevance of thorough assessment and responsive evaluation of pain in SHPC, and on the other hand it reveals possible training needs of referring physicians, particularly those working in the outpatient sector. Our results inspired further research examining more closely the links between referral source and pain management.
Introduction : En France, la méthadone est autorisée uniquement comme traitement de substitution. Elle peut être utilisée pour les douleurs liées au cancer. Le but de cette étude est d’évaluer l’efficacité et les effets secondaires de la méthadone dans cette indication.
Méthode : Il s’agit d’une étude rétrospective de janvier 2010 à février 2011, incluant tous les patients recevant de la méthadone pour la première fois. Le soulagement était considéré comme obtenu si l’intensité de la douleur était inférieure ou égale à 3/10 sur l’échelle d’évaluation numérique (EN) ou inférieure ou égale à 30/100 sur une échelle visuelle analogique (Eva), à j7 et j28. Les effets secondaires et leur persistance ont été explorés pendant l’instauration, à j7 et j28.
Résultats : Vingt-deux patients ont été inclus. Vingt patients ont été évalués au 7e jour, dix-huit patients à 28e. À j7, seize patients (80 %) étaient soulagés et onze (61 %) au 28e jour. Peu de patients ont présenté des effets indésirables : 8 patients (40 %) à j7 et 3 (16,7 %) à j28.
Conclusion : La méthadone est un traitement utile contre la douleur cancéreuse, en particulier pour la douleur cancéreuse rebelle et complexe.
Introduction : Les patients présentant une ischémie critique chronique des membres inférieurs ne sont pas toujours accessibles à un traitement curatif vasculaire. Les seules possibilités deviennent l’amputation, ou un traitement conservateur, limités pour soulager la douleur, et mal tolérés/acceptés. Dans cette approche palliative de l’ICC, l’objectif du travail est d’évaluer l’impact d’une neurolyse alcoolique du nerf sciatique, sur la qualité de vie (antalgie, retour à domicile), et d’évaluer le processus aboutissant à cette décision.
Méthode : Étude descriptive rétrospective sur dossiers médicaux de 13 patients en lits identifiés de soins palliatifs (LISP), entre 2017 et 2019.
Résultats : Les motivations pour la neurolyse étaient l’analgésie pérenne, le retour à domicile, le refus de l’amputation, et le caractère peu fonctionnel du membre atteint. L’analgésie était retrouvée chez tous les patients : après le geste, à J3, et à la sortie. Huit patients regagnaient le domicile (médiane de survie : 41jours). Deux étaient ré-hospitalisés. Cinq patients décédaient en LISP (médiane de 7jours postneurolyse). Un geste complémentaire était parfois nécessaire devant l’apparition d’un nouveau territoire douloureux. Des complications, attendues, étaient retrouvées. La recherche de collégialité existait pour tous les patients. La réflexion pluridisciplinaire, dans une démarche formalisée, était décrite pour la majorité.
Discussion : Cette étude suggère un bénéfice de la neurolyse, à contraster avec les limites évoquées : méthodologiques, et celles inhérentes à la technique. Elle s’envisage après évaluation et délibération pluridisciplinaire collégiale. Des travaux ultérieurs devraient préciser ces conclusions.
Background: No studies have explored the pain resource nurse curriculum in the hospice setting. This curriculum offers a structured method to teach pain management to nurses.
Aims: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of implementing a modified pain resource nurse curriculum on nursing knowledge in a community hospice agency.
Methods: A modified and condensed version of the pain resources nurse curriculum was presented to community hospice nurses during two educational sessions. A pre-test–post-test assessment was conducted using a modified version of the Nursing Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Pain tool to assess knowledge growth from the educational sessions.
Findings: For educational session 1, average correct responses rose slightly from the pre-test to the post-test. However, this increase was not found to be statistically significant. For educational session 2, average correct responses rose an average of 2.6 points. This increase was found to be statistically significant.
Conclusions: Based on this pre-experimental study, there is evidence that the pain resources nurse curriculum can provide an instructional framework for teaching hospice nurses. However, further study is needed, including a more rigorous design.