Was ist Schmerztherapie im „German refined – diagnosis related groups-System“ wert?

[Staff and organizational requirements for pain services in hospitals : A recommendation from the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine]

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches.With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments.

[Delegation of medical activities in acute pain therapy]

Acute pain management is an interprofessional and interdisciplinary task and requires a good and trustful cooperation between stakeholders. Despite provisions in Germany according to which medical treatment can only be rendered by a formally qualified physician ("Arztvorbehalt"), a physician does not have to carry out every medical activity in person. Under certain conditions, some medical activities can be delegated to medical auxiliary personnel but they need to be (1) instructed, (2) supervised and (3) checked by the physician himself; however, medical history, diagnostic assessment and evaluation, indications, therapy planning (e.g. selection, dosage), therapeutic decisions (e. g. modification or termination of therapy) and obtaining informed consent cannot be delegated. With respect to drug therapy, monitoring of the therapy remains the personal responsibility of the physician, while the actual application of medication can be delegated. From a legal perspective, the current practice needs to be stressed about what is within the mandatory requirements and what is not when medical activities are delegated to non-medical staff. The use of standards of care improves treatment quality but like any medical treatment it must be based on the physician's individual assessment and indications for each patient and requires personal contact between physician and patient. Delegation on the ward and in acute pain therapy requires the authorization of the delegator to give instructions in the respective setting. The transfer of non-delegable duties to non-medical personnel is regarded as medical malpractice.

Staff and organizational requirements for pain services in hospitals : A recommendation from the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches.With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments.

A follow-up on Acute Pain Services in Germany compared to international survey data

BACKGROUND

After the introduction of instruments for benchmarking, certification and a national guideline for acute pain management, the aim of this study was to describe the current structure, processes and quality of German acute pain services (APS).

METHODS

All directors of German departments of anaesthesiology were invited to complete a postal questionnaire on structures und processes of acute pain management. The survey asked for staff, techniques and quality criteria, which enabled a comparison to previous data from 1999 and surveys from other countries.

RESULTS

Four hundred and eight (46%) questionnaires were returned. APS have increased considerably and are now available in 81% of the hospitals, mainly anaesthesia based. However, only 45% fulfilled the minimum quality criteria, such as the assignment of personnel, the organization of patient care during nights and weekends, written protocols for postoperative pain management, regular assessments and documenting pain scores. Staff resources varied considerably, but increased compared to 1999. Two daily rounds were performed in 71%, either by physicians and nurses (42%), by physicians only (25%) or by supervised nurses (31%). Most personnel assigned to the APS shared this work along with other duties. Only 53% of the hospitals had an integrated rotation for training their specialty trainees.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of APS in Germany and other countries has increased over the last decade; however, the quality of nearly half of the APS is questionable. Against the disillusioning background of recently reported unfavourable pain-related patient outcomes, the structures, organization and quality of APS should be revisited.

[What is the difference between patients with and without complex postoperative acute pain therapy?: An analysis of medical and economic characteristics]

BACKGROUND

Appropriate postoperative pain therapy is essential for an accelerated recovery. However, coding complex acute pain therapy (OPS 8-919) does not have any impact on hospital revenues. As medical and economic primary data related to this therapy are scarce, hospital data were analysed to identify differences between patients with and without acute pain therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two patient groups were generated out of an anonymized data set from 372 acute care hospitals in 2005: The case group (G1) included 4,197 patients (OPS 8-919 coded). The control group (G2) contained 61,181 patients (neither OPS 8-919 nor 8-910 nor 8-911 coded).

RESULTS

The analysis revealed that patients in G1 had a prolonged mean length of hospital stay (2.5 days). The mean number of diagnoses per case was similar in both groups (G1:6.9, G2:6.6), whereas the mean number of procedures was higher in G1 (G1:8.2, G2:6.2). The difference in mean diagnosis-related group (DRG) revenue per case was about EUR 200 (G1:EUR 9,233, G2:EUR 9,030).

CONCLUSION

To validate the results found in this analysis, further evaluations of these patient groups are essential. High-quality documentation and coding in hospitals are required for future studies.

Quality improvement in postoperative pain management: results from the QUIPS project

INTRODUCTION

Acute postoperative pain management is still far from satisfactory despite the availability of high-quality guidelines and advanced pain management techniques.

METHODS

An outcome-oriented project called QUIPS (Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Management) was developed, consisting of standardized data acquisition and an analysis of quality and process indicators.

RESULTS

After validation of the questionnaire, a total of 12 389 data sets were collected from 30 departments in six participating hospitals. Improved outcomes (reduction in pain intensity) were observed in four of the six hospitals. The most painful operations, in the patients' judgment, were traumatological and orthopedic procedures, as well as laparoscopic appendectomy. Traditional process indicators, such as routine pain documentation, were only poorly correlated with outcomes.

DISCUSSION

QUIPS shows that outcomes in postoperative pain management can be measured and compared in routine clinical practice. This may lead to improved care. QUIPS reveals which operations are the most painful. Quality improvement initiatives should use as few resources as possible, measure the quality of the outcomes, and provide rapid feedback. Structural and process parameters should be continuously reevaluated to determine their suitability as indicators of quality.

[Costs of patient controlled analgesia in postoperative pain management in Germany]

PURPOSE

This systematic literature review was conducted to analyze the costs of postoperative patient controlled analgesia (PCA) in Germany.

METHODS

The literature search comprised the search criteria "therapeutic procedure", "postoperative pain management", the routes of administration "intravenous PCA" (PCIA) and "epidural PCA" (PCEA), as well as their corresponding costs and economic analyses.

RESULTS

Due to differences in indications, calculated costs and medical expenses it was not possible to compare the results from the respective studies.

CONCLUSION

A critical examination of benefits and costs of therapeutic options in hospitals has become necessary with the implementation of the German DRG compensation system. This has created a substantial need for the optimization of resources and processes. There is an enormous demand for research on the costs for PCA in Germany. The identification of cost-driving factors is necessary to determine saving potentials and thereby develop new technologies for postoperative analgesia.