An educational implementation of a cancer pain algorithm for ambulatory care

The effects of cancer clinical decision support systems on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The implementation of high-quality decision-making support are integral to ensuring the delivery of quality cancer care and subsequently achieving positive patient outcomes. Decision Support Systems (DSS) are increasingly used, however it is not known what the effects are beyond supporting the decision-making process. We aimed to identify and synthesize the available literature regarding the effects of DSS on patient-reported outcomes both during and after cancer treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using dual processes to identify empirical literature that reported an evaluation of DSS interventions and patient-reported outcomes. We appraised study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Data were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

We included 15 studies, categorized as symptom assessment interventions or interactive educational interventions. Findings were mixed regarding the effectiveness of DSS interventions in improving total symptom distress and severity, whereas the majority were effective in reducing mean scores for worst and usual pain. Interventions were not effective in improving other health-related patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, global distress, depression, or self-efficacy and there were mixed effects for reducing decisional conflict. There was moderate to high patient adherence to the interventions and generally high satisfaction and acceptability, yet minimal evidence for the effect of DSS interventions in clinician adherence to intervention recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Including patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of DSS is critical to understand their impact. Inconsistencies in reporting of interventions may, however, be a contributing factor to heterogeneous effects of clinical DSS regarding a broad range of patient-reported outcomes.

What Nursing-Sensitive Outcomes Have Been Investigated to Date among Patients with Solid and Hematological Malignancies? A Scoping Review

Nursing-sensitive outcomes are those outcomes attributable to nursing care. To date three main reviews have summarized the evidence available regarding the nursing outcomes in onco-haematological care. Updating the existing reviews was the main intent of this study; specifically, the aim was to map the state of the art of the science in the field of oncology nursing-sensitive outcomes and to summarise outcomes and metrics documented as being influenced by nursing care. A scoping review was conducted in 2021. The MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were examined. Qualitative and quantitative primary and secondary studies concerning patients with solid/haematological malignancies, cared for in any setting, published in English, and from any time were all included. Both inductive and deductive approaches were used to analyse the data extracted from the studies. Sixty studies have been included, mostly primary (n = 57, 95.0%) with a quasi- or experimental approach (n = 26, 55.3%), conducted among Europe (n = 27, 45.0%), in hospitals and clinical wards (n = 29, 48.3%), and including from 8 to 4615 patients. In the inductive analysis, there emerged 151 outcomes grouped into 38 categories, with the top category being 'Satisfaction and perception of nursing care received' (n = 32, 21.2%). Outcome measurement systems included mainly self-report questionnaires (n = 89, 66.9%). In the deductive analysis, according to the Oncology Nursing Society 2004 classification, the 'Symptom control and management' domain was the most investigated (n = 44, 29.1%); however, the majority (n = 50, 33.1%) of nursing-sensitive outcomes that emerged were not includible in the available framework. Continuing to map nursing outcomes may be useful for clinicians, managers, educators, and researchers in establishing the endpoints of their practice. The ample number of instruments and metrics that emerged suggests the need for more development of homogeneous assessment systems allowing comparison across health issues, settings, and countries.

Effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies on health care professionals' behaviour and patient outcomes in the cancer care context: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Health care professionals (HCPs) use clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to make evidence-informed decisions regarding patient care. Although a large number of cancer-related CPGs exist, it is unknown which CPG dissemination and implementation strategies are effective for improving HCP behaviour and patient outcomes in a cancer care context. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of CPG dissemination and/or implementation strategies among HCPs in a cancer care context.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of five electronic databases was conducted. Studies were limited to the dissemination and/or implementation of a CPG targeting both medical and/or allied HCPs in cancer care. Two reviewers independently coded strategies using the Mazza taxonomy, extracted study findings, and assessed study quality.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 33 studies targeting medical and/or allied HCPs. Across the 33 studies, 23 of a possible 49 strategies in the Mazza taxonomy were used, with a mean number of 3.25 (SD = 1.45) strategies per intervention. The number of strategies used per intervention was not associated with positive outcomes. Educational strategies (n = 24), feedback on guideline compliance (n = 11), and providing reminders (n = 10) were the most utilized strategies. When used independently, providing reminders and feedback on CPG compliance corresponded with positive significant changes in outcomes. Further, when used as part of multi-strategy interventions, group education and organizational strategies (e.g. creation of an implementation team) corresponded with positive significant changes in outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Future CPG dissemination and implementation interventions for cancer care HCPs may benefit from utilizing the identified strategies. Research in this area should aim for better alignment between study objectives, intervention design, and evaluation measures, and should seek to incorporate theory in intervention design, so that behavioural antecedents are considered and measured; doing so would enhance the field's understanding of the causal mechanisms by which interventions lead, or do not lead, to changes in outcomes at all levels.

Relationships between patient-related attitudinal barriers, analgesic adherence and pain relief in Chinese cancer inpatients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient-related attitudinal barriers and identify associated factors in Chinese cancer inpatients receiving opioids and to explore relationships between patient-related attitudinal barriers, analgesic adherence and pain relief.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted. A total of 146 participants completed face-to-face surveys, including information about demographics, the Barriers Questionnaire-Chinese (BQ-C), analgesic adherence, average pain and breakthrough pain in the past 24 h. The Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were performed to test the differences in the attitudinal barrier scores between the adherence and nonadherence groups, the complete and incomplete pain relief groups and the groups based on demographics.

RESULTS

The majority of participants in this study were men (67.8%), over half of all participants were less than 60 years old, gastrointestinal cancer (47.3%) was the most common diagnosis and 59 (40.4%) acquired comprehensive pain education from the last discharge guidance procedure. The total BQ-C mean (SD) score was 1.61 ± 0.94. A total of 87 (59.6%) patients with cancer pain were completely relieved. Most of the patients (73.3%) completely took analgesics by orders. There was no significant difference in the total BQ-C score between the adherence group and the nonadherence group (P > 0.05), but the difference was significant between the complete pain relief group and the incomplete pain relief group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study support unsatisfactory pain management and moderate analgesic adherence for Chinese inpatients. It is suggested that patient-related attitudinal barriers do not play an undermining role in pain management by negatively affecting patients' analgesic adherence. Conversely, patients' beliefs are more likely to be shaped by under treatment rather than as a cause.

Pain management index (PMI)-does it reflect cancer patients' wish for focus on pain?

BACKGROUND

The pain management index (PMI) was developed to combine information about the prescribed analgesics and the self-reported pain intensity in order to assess physicians' response to patients' pain. However, PMI has been used to explore undertreatment of cancer pain. The present study explores prevalence of negative PMI and its associations to clinical variables, including the patient-perceived wish for more attention to pain.

METHODS

A single-center, cross-sectional, observational study of cancer patients was conducted. Data on demographics and clinical variables, as well as patient-perceived wish for more attention to pain, were registered. PMI was calculated. Negative PMI indicates that the analgesics prescribed might not be appropriate to the pain intensity reported by the patient, and associations to negative PMI were explored by logistic regression models.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-seven patients were included, 53% had a negative PMI score. Negative PMI scores were more frequent among patients with breast cancer (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.3, 13.5), in a follow-up setting (OR 12.1, 95% CI 1.4, 101.4), and were inversely associated to low performance status (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03, 0.65). Twenty-two percent of patients with negative PMI scores reported that they wanted more focus on pain management, versus 13% among patients with a non-negative PMI score; the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

A high prevalence of negative PMI was observed, but only 1/5 of patients with a negative PMI wanted more attention to pain by their physician. Our findings challenge the use of PMI as a measure of undertreatment of cancer pain.

An in-hospital clinical care pathway with integrated decision support for cancer pain management reduced pain intensity and needs for hospital stay

PURPOSE

A clinical care pathway for pain management in a palliative care unit was studied with outcomes related to patients, physicians, and health care service. Mandatory use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and physician-directed decision support (DS) were integrated parts of the pathway.

METHODS

Adult cancer patients with pain intensity (PI) ≥ 5 (NRS 0-10) at admission were eligible. The patients reported average and worst PI at admission, day four, and discharge. The physicians completed the DS at admission and day four. The DS presented potential needs for treatment changes based on pain severity and pathophysiology. The physicians reported treatment changes due to input from the DS system. The two primary outcomes were average and worst PI changes from admission to discharge. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was registered.

RESULTS

Of 52 included patients, 41 were discharged alive. For those, the mean average PI at admission and at discharge was 5.8 and 2.4, respectively, a reduction of 3.4 points (CI 95% 2.7-4.1). The corresponding worst pain intensities were 7.9 and 3.8, a reduction of 4.1 points (CI 95% 3.4-4.8). The physicians completed DS forms for all patients. Fifty-five percent (CI 95% 41-69) of the patients had pain intervention changes based on the DS. A significant reduction in LOS (4.4 days, CI 95% 0.5-8.3) was observed during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The interventions were implemented according to the intentions and PI was reduced as hypothesized. For evaluation of generalizability, the interventions should be studied in other settings and with a controlled design.

Optimizing cancer pain management in resource-limited settings

Purpose

Adequate cancer pain management (CPM) is challenging in resource-limited settings, where current international guideline recommendations are difficult to implement owing to constraints such as inadequate availability and accessibility of opioids, limited awareness of appropriate opioid use among patients and clinicians, and lack of guidance on how to translate the best evidence into clinical practice. The multinational and multidisciplinary CAncer Pain managEment in Resource-limited settings (CAPER) Working Group proposes a two-step initiative to bridge clinical practice gaps in CPM in resource-limited settings.

Methods

A thorough review of the literature, a steering committee meeting in February 2017, and post-meeting teleconference discussions contributed to the development of this initiative. As a first step, we developed practical evidence-based CPM algorithms to support healthcare providers (HCPs) in tailoring treatment according to availability of and access to resources. The second part of the initiative proposes a framework to support an effective implementation of the CPM algorithms that includes an educational program, a pilot implementation, and an advocacy plan.

Results

We developed CPM algorithms for first-line use, breakthrough cancer pain, opioid rotation, and refractory cancer pain based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and expert consensus. Our proposed educational program emphasizes the practical elements and illustrates how HCPs can provide optimal CPM according to evidence-based guidelines despite varied resource limitations. Pilot studies are proposed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithms and the educational program, as well as for providing evidence to support a draft advocacy document, to lobby policymakers to improve availability and accessibility of analgesics in resource-limited settings.

Conclusions

These practical evidence-informed algorithms and the implementation framework represent the first multinational step towards achieving optimal CPM in resource-limited settings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-018-4471-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of Evidence-based Nursing Pain Management Practice

It is important to ensure that cancer pain management is based on the best evidence. Nursing evidence-based pain management can be examined through an evaluation of pain documentation. The aim of this study was to modify and test an evaluation tool for nursing cancer pain documentation, and describe the frequency and quality of nursing pain documentation in one oncology unit via the electronic medical system. A descriptive cross-sectional design was used for this study at an oncology unit of an academic medical center in the Pacific Northwest. Medical records were examined for 37 adults hospitalized during April and May 2013. Nursing pain documentations (N = 230) were reviewed using an evaluation tool modified from the Cancer Pain Practice Index to consist of 13 evidence-based pain management indicators, including pain assessment, care plan, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, monitoring and treatment of analgesic side effects, communication with physicians, and patient education. Individual nursing documentation was assigned a score ranging from 0 (worst possible) to 13 (best possible), to reflect the delivery of evidence-based pain management. The participating nurses documented 90% of the recommended evidence-based pain management indicators. Documentation was suboptimal for pain reassessment, pharmacologic interventions, and bowel regimen. The study results provide implications for enhancing electronic medical record design and highlight a need for future research to understand the reasons for suboptimal nursing documentation of cancer pain management. For the future use of the data evaluation tool, we recommend additional modifications according to study settings.

Is it possible to detect an improvement in cancer pain management? A comparison of two Norwegian cross-sectional studies conducted 5 years apart

PURPOSE

Cancer pain (CP) management is challenging. In recent years, efforts were undertaken to achieve better CP management, e.g. clinical research, new treatment modalities, development of guidelines, education and focus on implementation. The aim of the present study was to compare the prevalence and characteristics of pain and breakthrough pain (BTP) between cross-sectional studies conducted in 2008 and 2014. It was hypothesized that an improvement in pain control would be observed the years in between.

METHODS

Two cross-sectional studies were conducted where adult cancer patients answered questions from Brief Pain Inventory and the Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool for cancer patients. Physicians reported socio-demographic and medical data. Regression models were applied for analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 168 inpatients, 92 in 2008 and 76 in 2014, and 675 outpatients, 301 in 2008 and 374 in 2014, were included. The patient characteristics of the samples were comparable. Prevalence of CP among inpatients was 55 % in 2008 and 53 % in 2014, and among outpatients, 39 and 35 %, respectively. Inpatients reported average pain intensity (0-10 numerical rating scale, NRS) of 3.60 (standard deviation, SD 1.84) (2008) and 4.08 (SD 2.11) (2014); prevalence of BTP was 52 % (2008) and 41 % (2014). For outpatients, average pain intensity was 3.60 (SD 2.04) (2008) and 3.86 (SD 2.20) (2014); prevalence of BTP was 43 % (2008) and 37 % (2014). None of the differences were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Unexpectedly, no improvement in pain control was observed. Efforts are still needed to improve cancer pain management.

A mixed-methods approach to investigating the adoption of evidence-based pain practices in nursing homes

This mixed methods study examined perceived facilitators and obstacles to adopting evidence-based pain management protocols vis-a-vis documented practice changes that were measured using a chart audit tool. This analysis used data from a subgroup of four nursing homes that participated in a clinical trial. Focus group interviews with staff yielded qualitative data about perceived factors that affected their willingness and ability to use the protocols. Chart audits determined whether pain assessment and management practices changed over time in light of these reported facilitators and barriers. Reported facilitators included administrative support, staff consistency, and policy and procedure changes. Barriers were staff attitudes, regulatory issues, and provider mistrust of nurses' judgment. Overall, staff reported improvements in pain practices. These reports were corroborated by modest but significant increases in adherence to recommended practices. Change in clinical practice is complex and requires attention to both structural and process aspects of care.

A systematic review of health care interventions for pain in patients with advanced cancer

PURPOSE

Poorly controlled pain is common in advanced cancer. The objective of this article was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of pain-focused interventions in this population.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and DARE from 2000 through December 2011. We included prospective, controlled health care intervention studies in advanced cancer populations, focusing on pain.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria; most focused on nurse-led patient-centered interventions. In all, 9 (47%) of the 19 studies found a significant effect on pain. The most common intervention type was patient/caregiver education, in 17 (89%) of 19 studies, 7 of which demonstrated a significant decrease in pain.

CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate strength of evidence that pain in advanced cancer can be improved using health care interventions, particularly nurse-led patient-centered interventions.

An examination of adherence to pain medication plans in older cancer patients in hospice care

CONTEXT

Timely and appropriate management of pain is essential to promote comfort at the end of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if pain-related factors and nonpharmacologic interventions affect medication adherence in older cancer patients in community-based hospices.

METHODS

The study involved cancer patients aged 55 years and older, newly admitted to one of the 13 community-based hospices in the midwestern U.S. A descriptive design with patients or their proxies providing information during two telephonic interviews and review of their hospice medical records were used.

RESULTS

A total sample of 65 patients was obtained, with data directly from 32 patients during Interview 1 (T(1)), 25 during Interview 2 (T(2)), and proxy reports for 33 (T(1)) and 30 (T(2)) patients. The overall mean pain medication adherence scores (maximum 9) for all patients were 8.43 (T(1)) and 8.38 (T(2)). For component analysis (three components; maximum of three points each), patients were the least adherent with opioid orders at both time points (2.65). Patients were the most adherent to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory/acetaminophen orders at T(1) (2.91) and medications for neuropathic pain at T(2) (2.89). Data provided statistical evidence that patients with more hours of controlled pain in the past 24 hours were more likely to have had better adherence, whereas patients with higher levels of comfort over the last few days were more likely to have had worse adherence.

CONCLUSION

This study identified that pain medication adherence among older adults with cancer receiving hospice care is high. However, hospices must be alert to the fact that even as patients become more comfortable, adherence must continue to be emphasized to ensure that pain does not redevelop or exacerbate, if pain relief is a patient priority.

Addressing methodological challenges in implementing the nursing home pain management algorithm randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Unrelieved pain among nursing home (NH) residents is a well-documented problem. Attempts have been made to enhance pain management for older adults, including those in NHs. Several evidence-based clinical guidelines have been published to assist providers in assessing and managing acute and chronic pain in older adults. Despite the proliferation and dissemination of these practice guidelines, research has shown that intensive systems-level implementation strategies are necessary to change clinical practice and patient outcomes within a health-care setting. One promising approach is the embedding of guidelines into explicit protocols and algorithms to enhance decision making.

PURPOSE

The goal of the article is to describe several issues that arose in the design and conduct of a study that compared the effectiveness of pain management algorithms coupled with a comprehensive adoption program versus the effectiveness of education alone in improving evidence-based pain assessment and management practices, decreasing pain and depressive symptoms, and enhancing mobility among NH residents.

METHODS

The study used a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) design in which the individual NH was the unit of randomization. The Roger's Diffusion of Innovations theory provided the framework for the intervention. Outcome measures were surrogate-reported usual pain, self-reported usual and worst pain, and self-reported pain-related interference with activities, depression, and mobility.

RESULTS

The final sample consisted of 485 NH residents from 27 NHs. The investigators were able to use a staggered enrollment strategy to recruit and retain facilities. The adaptive randomization procedures were successful in balancing intervention and control sites on key NH characteristics. Several strategies were successfully implemented to enhance the adoption of the algorithm. LIMITATIONS/LESSONS: The investigators encountered several methodological challenges that were inherent to both the design and implementation of the study. The most problematic issue concerned the measurement of outcomes in persons with moderate to severe cognitive impairment. It was difficult to identify valid, reliable, and sensitive outcome measures that could be applied to all NH residents regardless of the ability to self-report. Another challenge was the inability to incorporate advances in implementation science into the ongoing study

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological challenges are inevitable in the conduct of an RCT. The need to optimize internal validity by adhering to the study protocol is compromised by the emergent logistical issues that arise during the course of the study.

Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research

BACKGROUND

The Cochrane Collaboration is strongly encouraging the use of a newly developed tool, the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT), for all review groups. However, the psychometric properties of this tool to date have yet to be described. Thus, the objective of this study was to add information about psychometric properties of the CCRBT including inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity, in comparison with the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP).

METHODS

Both tools were used to assess the methodological quality of 20 randomized controlled trials included in our systematic review of the effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions to improve the management of cancer pain. Each study assessment was completed independently by two reviewers using each tool. We analysed the inter-rater reliability of each tool's individual domains, as well as final grade assigned to each study.

RESULTS

The EPHPP had fair inter-rater agreement for individual domains and excellent agreement for the final grade. In contrast, the CCRBT had slight inter-rater agreement for individual domains and fair inter-rater agreement for final grade. Of interest, no agreement between the two tools was evident in their final grade assigned to each study. Although both tools were developed to assess 'quality of the evidence', they appear to measure different constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

Both tools performed quite differently when evaluating the risk of bias or methodological quality of studies in knowledge translation interventions for cancer pain. The newly introduced CCRBT assigned these studies a higher risk of bias. Its psychometric properties need to be more thoroughly validated, in a range of research fields, to understand fully how to interpret results from its application.

Do educational interventions improve cancer patients' quality of life and reduce pain intensity? Quantitative systematic review

AIMS

This paper reports a quantitative systematic review of the effects of educational interventions on quality of life, pain intensity and pain interference in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain has a marked negative impact on quality of life, and this has become an important issue in discussions of treatment options. Patient education seems to be effective in pain management, but no review has been published with quality of life as an outcome measure.

DATA SOURCES

Relevant publications from 2000 to 2010 were identified in six databases (Medline, CIHAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and DARE) and by means of hand-searches. All randomized controlled trial studies of pain-education programmes for cancer patients were considered, and a quantitative review of effectiveness carried out.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were critically appraised by three independent reviewers, and the Jadad score was used to assess the quality of those included.

RESULTS

Four studies meeting the inclusion criteria were used, after methodological quality assessment. Pain intensity and pain interference were significantly reduced after education, but statistical change in quality of life was not found in any of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain and quality of life are complex matters, and quality of life might not be a sensitive indicator of the effectiveness of pain education. To improve quality of life and reduce the severity of pain in cancer patients, individualized care, recognition of variations in patient experience, and a multi-disciplinary approach are required. Further research is recommended into patients' preferences of any educational intervention, and into the quality of existing education programmes and the expertise of the healthcare professionals concerned.

A theory-based educational intervention targeting nurses' attitudes and knowledge concerning cancer-related pain management: a study protocol of a quasi-experimental design

Background

Pain is one of the most frequent problems among patients diagnosed with cancer. Despite the availability of effective pharmacological treatments, this group of patients often receives less than optimal treatment. Research into nurses' pain management highlights certain factors, such as lack of knowledge and attitudes and inadequate procedures for systematic pain assessment, as common barriers to effective pain management. However, educational interventions targeting nurses' pain management have shown promise. As cancer-related pain is also known to have a negative effect on vital aspects of the patient's life, as well as being commonly associated with problems such as sleep, fatigue, depression and anxiety, further development of knowledge within this area is warranted.

Methods/design

A quasi-experimental study design will be used to investigate whether the implementation of guidelines for systematic daily pain assessments following a theory-based educational intervention will result in an improvement in knowledge and attitude among nurses. A further aim is to investigate whether the intervention that targets nurses' behaviour will improve hospital patients' perception of pain. Data regarding nurses' knowledge and attitudes to pain (primary outcome), patient perception regarding pain (secondary outcome), together with socio-demographic variables, will be collected at baseline and at four weeks and 12 weeks following the intervention.

Discussion

Nursing care is nowadays acknowledged as an increasingly complicated activity and "nursing complexity is such that it can be seen as the quintessential complex intervention." To be able to change and improve clinical practice thus requires multiple points of attack appropriate to meet complex challenges. Consequently, we expect the theory-based intervention used in our quasi-experimental study to improve care as well as quality of life for this group of patients and we also envisage that evidence-based guidelines targeting this patient group's pain will be implemented more widely.

Trial Registration Number

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01313234

Effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions to improve cancer pain management

CONTEXT

Cancer pain is prevalent, yet patients do not receive best care despite widely available evidence. Although national cancer control policies call for education, effectiveness of such programs is unclear and best practices are not well defined.

OBJECTIVES

To examine existing evidence on whether knowledge translation (KT) interventions targeting health care providers, patients, and caregivers improve cancer pain outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to evaluate primary studies that examined effects of KT interventions on providers and patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies reported interventions targeting health care providers, four focused on patients or their families, one study examined patients and their significant others, and 16 studies examined patients only. Seven quantitative comparisons measured the statistical effects of interventions. A significant difference favoring the treatment group in least pain intensity (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44, 1.42) and in usual pain/average pain (95% CI: 0.13, 0.74) was observed. No other statistical differences were observed. However, most studies were assessed as having high risk of bias and failed to report sufficient information about the intervention dose, quality of educational material, fidelity, and other key factors required to evaluate effectiveness of intervention design.

CONCLUSION

Trials that used a higher dose of KT intervention (characterized by extensive follow-up, comprehensive educational program, and higher resource allocation) were significantly more likely to have positive results than trials that did not use this approach. Further attention to methodological issues to improve educational interventions and research to clarify factors that lead to better pain control are urgently needed.

The use of algorithms in assessing and managing persistent pain in older adults

OVERVIEW

As the U.S. population ages, nurses will care for increasing numbers of older adults, most of whom suffer from at least one chronic illness. The persistent pain associated with many chronic illnesses can have detrimental effects on patients' functioning and quality of life. Algorithms developed from evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are tools that can facilitate the application of research to practice. This article introduces readers to the use of algorithms in guiding the assessment and management of persistent pain in older adults, and provides an illustrative case study.

Systematic review of practice guideline dissemination and implementation strategies for healthcare teams and team-based practice

AIM

To synthesis the literature relevant to guideline dissemination and implementation strategies for healthcare teams and team-based practice.

METHODS

Systematic approach utilising Joanna Briggs Institute methods. Two reviewers screened all articles and where there was disagreement, a third reviewer determined inclusion.

RESULTS

Initial search revealed 12,083 of which 88 met the inclusion criteria. Ten dissemination and implementation strategies identified with distribution of educational materials the most common. Studies were assessed for patient or practitioner outcomes and changes in practice, knowledge and economic outcomes. A descriptive analysis revealed multiple approaches using teams of healthcare providers were reported to have statistically significant results in knowledge, practice and/or outcomes for 72.7% of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Team-based care using practice guidelines locally adapted can affect positively patient and provider outcomes.

The cancer pain practice index: a measure of evidence-based practice adherence for cancer pain management in older adults in hospice care

Various clinical practice guidelines addressing pain assessment and management have been available for several years that pertain, at least to some extent, to older patients with cancer. Nonetheless, systematic evaluations or methodologically sound studies of adherence to pain management practice guidelines within Medicare-certified hospice programs are lacking. As part of a larger translating-research-into-practice pain improvement study involving older patients with cancer in hospice programs, we recognized the need to create a valid and reliable tool that can facilitate critical evaluation of hospice medical records for nurse and physician adherence to pain management guidelines to create a consolidated score for comparative and quality improvement purposes. We report the process used to create this tool, named the Cancer Pain Practice Index, and a guide to its use.

A medication assessment tool to evaluate adherence to medication guideline criteria in cancer pain management

Objective

The medication assessment tool for cancer pain management (MAT-CP) is a novel tool for measuring quality of drug use in chronic pain management in relation to guideline standards, and has been developed and tested in Norway with UK collaboration. The present paper describes the revision of the assessment tool for use in the UK, and its subsequent validation.

Setting

Three hospitals and one hospice in Scotland, UK.

Method

The MAT-CP was field-tested to produce preliminary data on its applicability in a UK clinical setting. The tool was then modified by peer review among clinical specialists before and after a pilot. The revised tool was further validated by wider application to a study sample of cancer inpatients. The outcome was the evaluation of the tool's utility in relation to clinical documentation in terms of applicability, clarity, reliability and perceived relevance of each criterion. The findings also included a quantification of adherence to the guideline criteria.

Key findings

The revised tool comprised 37 criteria covering six different aspects of cancer pain management. The field testing and pilot informed the modification of the MAT-CP to optimise its clarity and utility when applied to patients' clinical documentation. The revised tool was tested on 101 cancer patients experiencing pain (56 males), mean (standard deviation) age 68.9 (13.5) years. Overall guideline adherence was 68% (n = 1850 applicable criteria). Good inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa κ = 0.92) was demonstrated in the application. The preliminary application of the tool during validation and field-testing has highlighted several issues for further study.

Conclusion

A clinical tool to examine prescribing in cancer pain management that was designed for use in Norway has been revised for use in UK clinical settings. Reliability, face and content validity have been informed by applying the tool to patient data in clinical settings.

Nursing home staff adherence to evidence-based pain management practices

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which nursing home staff adhere to current evidence-based guidelines to assess and manage persistent pain experienced by elderly residents. A retrospective audit was conducted of the medical records of 291 residents of 14 long-term care facilities in western Washington State. Data revealed a gap between actual practice and current best practice. Assessment of persistent pain was limited primarily to intensity and location. Although prescribing practices were more in line with evidence-based guidelines, a significant number of residents did not obtain adequate pain relief. Nonpharmacological pain management methods were rarely implemented. Nursing home staff and administrators must critically examine both system and individual staff reasons for failure to comply with best pain management practices. Research is needed to determine factors that contribute to less-than-optimal adherence to evidence-based guidelines for pain management, as well as the best methods for implementing practice change.

Nursing home staff adherence to evidence-based pain management practices

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which nursing home staff adhere to current evidence-based guidelines to assess and manage persistent pain experienced by elderly residents. A retrospective audit was conducted of the medical records of 291 residents of 14 long-term care facilities in western Washington State. Data revealed a gap between actual practice and current best practice. Assessment of persistent pain was limited primarily to intensity and location. Although prescribing practices were more in line with evidence-based guidelines, a significant number of residents did not obtain adequate pain relief. Nonpharmacological pain management methods were rarely implemented. Nursing home staff and administrators must critically examine both system and individual staff reasons for failure to comply with best pain management practices. Research is needed to determine factors that contribute to less-than-optimal adherence to evidence-based guidelines for pain management, as well as the best methods for implementing practice change.

Prevalence rates for and predictors of self-reported adherence of oncology outpatients with analgesic medications

OBJECTIVES

Inadequate adherence with an analgesic regimen may be a reason why oncology patients experience unrelieved pain. However, only a limited number of studies have evaluated the prevalence rates for adherence and no studies have attempted to determine predictors of adherence in patients with cancer pain. On the basis of concepts from the Health Belief Model, the purposes of this study were to describe oncology outpatients' level of adherence with an analgesic regimen and to evaluate the direct and indirect effects of selected demographic variables, pain characteristics, barriers to pain management, and self-efficacy (SE) on adherence with an analgesic regimen.

METHODS

A descriptive, cross-sectional study recruited outpatients from oncology clinics in a large, tertiary referral cancer hospital in Norway. A sample of 174 oncology outpatients completed a demographic questionnaire, the Brief Pain Inventory, 2 self-reported adherence measures, the Barriers Questionnaire, and a SE questionnaire.

RESULTS

Only 41% of the patients were adherent with their analgesic regimen. In the regression analysis, 29.9% of the variance in adherence was explained. Higher adherence scores were associated with male sex, and also lower SE for physical function scores, higher average pain intensity scores, higher pain relief scores, and the use of strong opioid analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in pain management may occur if clinicians routinely assessed patients' level of adherence with their analgesics regimen.

Patient training in cancer pain management using integrated print and video materials: a multisite randomized controlled trial

Standard guidelines for cancer pain treatment routinely recommend training patients to reduce barriers to pain relief, use medications appropriately, and communicate their pain-related needs. Methods are needed to reduce professional time required while achieving sustained intervention effectiveness. In a multisite, randomized controlled trial, this study tested a pain training method versus a nutrition control. At six oncology clinics, physicians (N=22) and nurses (N=23) enrolled patients (N=93) who were over 18 years of age, with cancer diagnoses, pain, and a life expectancy of at least 6 months. Pain training and control interventions were matched for materials and method. Patients watched a video followed by about 20 min of manual-standardized training with an oncology nurse focused on reviewing the printed material and adapted to individual concerns of patients. A follow-up phone call after 72 h addressed individualized treatment content and pain communication. Assessments at baseline, one, three, and 6 months included barriers, the Brief Pain Inventory, opioid use, and physician and nurse ratings of their patients' pain. Trained versus control patients reported reduced barriers to pain relief (P<.001), lower usual pain (P=.03), and greater opioid use (P<.001). No pain training patients reported severe pain (>6 on a 0-10 scale) at 1-month outcomes (P=.03). Physician and nurse ratings were closer to patients' ratings of pain for trained versus nutrition groups (P=.04 and <.001, respectively). Training efficacy was not modified by patient characteristics. Using video and print materials, with brief individualized training, effectively improved pain management over time for cancer patients of varying diagnostic and demographic groups.

Do Patients' Beliefs Act as Barriers to Effective Pain Management Behaviors and Outcomes in Patients With Cancer-Related or Noncancer-Related Pain?

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To understand the role of patients' beliefs in pain management in a cancer population treated in a primary care setting.

DESIGN

Secondary analyses of data from the baseline phase of a randomized study.

SETTING

Eight of the largest primary care clinics in a managed care system.

SAMPLE

342 patients with cancer who reported pain that would not dissipate on its own or when treated by over-the-counter medication; approximately half had pain that was not cancer related.

METHODS

Telephone interviews.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Patients' demographic characteristics, self-reported history and beliefs about pain and pain treatment, willingness to report pain and take pain medication, recent pain intensity, and administrative data on opioid prescriptions.

FINDINGS

Patients' beliefs were not associated strongly with reporting pain or taking medication. Regression analyses revealed that patients' beliefs played a limited role in predicting recent pain intensity, whereas the providers' pain management practices seemed to have a far greater predictive role. Additionally, among patients with recent moderate to severe pain, the relationship between patients' beliefs and their history of pain and pain treatment further suggests that beliefs are likely to be formed, in part, as a consequence of the care they receive. Results did not depend on whether the cause of pain was related to cancer.

CONCLUSION

Patients' beliefs were important barriers to effective pain management, either as direct or indirect determinants of pain. Providers' pain management practices were more likely to determine the level of pain relief achieved and the beliefs their patients came to hold based on their personal experiences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nursing interventions should examine the impact of evaluating patients' beliefs in conjunction with pain assessment on pain-related behaviors and pain relief, as well as the ability of patient educational efforts to strengthen accurate beliefs and enable patients to assert themselves when interacting with less knowledgeable providers.

Design and validation of a medication assessment tool for cancer pain management

OBJECTIVE

A clinical tool to examine prescribing in cancer pain management may provide a means to help establish acceptable standards of adherence to treatment guidelines. The study aim was to design and validate a Medication Assessment Tool for Cancer Pain Management (MAT-CP).

SETTING

Hospitals in Northern Norway

METHOD

The MAT-CP was designed from guideline criteria based on a previously developed method. The tool was validated by peer review before and during field-testing on a study sample of cancer patients experiencing pain.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Perceived relevance, utility, and clarity of individual criteria, and reliability of their application to clinical documentation. Frequency of adherence to agreed definitions of guideline criteria.

RESULTS

The final tool comprised 36 criteria covering six different aspects of cancer pain management: (1) pain assessment and information transfer, (2) start of strong opioid therapy; (3) current continuous analgesia; (4) current intermittent analgesia; (5) follow-up of therapy, and; (6) other care issues. The tool was tested on 109 cancer patients experiencing pain (57 males), mean (SD) age 60.8 (11.5) years. Guideline adherence overall was 61% (n=1704 applicable criteria). The field-testing informed the modification of the MAT-CP to optimise its clarity and utility when applied to patients' clinical documentation. Good inter- and intra-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa kappa=0.86 and kappa=0.95, respectively) were demonstrated in the application. The preliminary application of the tool during field-testing has highlighted the following for further study: (a) Low adherence <50%) to 14 standards concerning start of opioid treatment and pain therapy follow-up, clinical assessment of risk of gastro-intestinal adverse effects among patients on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), current treatment of breakthrough pain, management of nausea/vomiting; (b) High adherence (>75%) to standards of prescribing of continuous analgesia.

CONCLUSION

A clinical tool to examine prescribing in cancer pain management has been designed. Face and content validity have been informed by field-testing. The tool requires further study among palliative care specialists as part of the validation required before it can be recommended for clinical use.

Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

BACKGROUND

Strategies to implement change in health professional performance have variable impact. A potential explanation is that the barriers to implementation are different in different settings and at different times. Change may be more likely if the strategies were specifically chosen to address the identified barriers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of strategies tailored to address specific, identified barriers to change in professional performance.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) specialised register and pending files until end of December 2002. English language articles only were included.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported objectively measured professional practice or health care outcomes in which at least one group received an intervention designed (or tailored) to address prospectively identified barriers to change.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. We also contacted study authors to obtain any missing information. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies. For Comparison 1 (an intervention tailored to address identified barriers to change compared to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers), there was no consistency in the results and the effect sizes varied both across and within studies.A meta-regression of a subset of the included studies, using a classical approach estimated a combined OR of 2.18 (95% CI: 1.09, 4.34), p = 0.026 in favour of tailored interventions. However, when a Bayesian approach was taken, meta-regression gave a combined OR of 2.27 (95% Credible Interval: 0.92, 4.75), which was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions tailored to prospectively identify barriers may improve care and patient outcomes. However, from the studies included in this review, we were unable to determine whether the barriers were valid, which were the most important barriers, whether all barriers were identified and if they had been addressed by the intervention chosen. Based on the evidence presented in this review, the effectiveness of tailored interventions remains uncertain and more rigorous trials (including process evaluations) are needed. Further research needs to address explicitly the questions of identifying and addressing barriers.

Cancer pain assessment in clinical trials. A review of the literature (1999-2002)

The aim of this review was to evaluate the methods of pain measurement in controlled clinical trials in oncology published between 1999 and 2002. An electronic literature search strategy was used according to established criteria applied to the Medline database and PubMed search engine. Articles were selected to include only studies that had chronic cancer pain as the primary or secondary objective of a controlled clinical trial. A specific evaluation scheme was used to examine how pain measurement methods were chosen and implemented in the study procedures. The search strategy identified 613 articles, and 68 were selected for evaluation. Most articles (69%) chose unidimensional pain measurement tools, such as visual analogue scales, numerical rating scales and verbal rating scales, whereas others used questionnaires. The implementation of the pain assessment method was problematic in many studies, especially as far as time frame of pain assessment (70%), administration modalities (46%), and use of non-validated measurement methods (10%). Design of study and data analysis were often unclear about the definition of pain outcome measure (40%), patient compliance with pain assessment (98%), and impact of missing data (56%). Statistical techniques were seldom appropriate to the type of data collected and often inadequate to describe the pain variable under study. It is clear from this review that most authors were aware of the need of valid pain measurement tools to be used in clinical trials. However, too often these tools were not appropriately used in the trial, or at least their use was not described with sufficient accuracy in the trial methods.

A Systematic Review of Studies Evaluating Diffusion and Dissemination of Selected Cancer Control Interventions

With this review, the authors sought to determine what strategies have been evaluated (including the outcomes assessed) to disseminate cancer control interventions that promote the uptake of behavior change. Five topic areas along the cancer care continuum (smoking cessation, healthy diet, mammography, cervical cancer screening, and control of cancer pain) were selected to be representative. A systematic review was conducted of primary studies evaluating dissemination of a cancer control intervention. Thirty-one studies were identified that evaluated dissemination strategies in the 5 topic areas. No strong evidence currently exists to recommend any one dissemination strategy as effective in promoting the uptake of cancer control interventions. The authors conclude that there is a strong need for more research into dissemination of cancer control interventions. Future research should consider methodological issues such as the most appropriate study design and outcomes to be evaluated.

Implementation and refinement of a research utilization course for oncology nurses

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To describe the implementation and refinement of a yearly research utilization (RU) course for oncology nurses.

DESIGN

Formative program evaluation.

SAMPLE

22 oncology nurses selected based on competitively reviewed project proposals.

METHODS

The one-day RU course was held five times prior to the annual fall Oncology Nursing Society conference. The course consisted of brief didactic sessions on RU, project presentations by participants, faculty reviews, and discussions of practical issues related to project implementation.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Course content, usefulness of course components.

FINDINGS

Based on immediate postcourse, 6-month, and 12-month feedback, refinements were made to the course. A major change (in year three) was the addition of a "preparation packet," which contained resources about RU and directed students to accomplish specific precourse goals, and access to a faculty mentor. Evaluation scores were good to outstanding for the content and usefulness of the course presentations, critiques by faculty, and discussion sessions. Interviews with participants indicated that a majority completed or were working on their projects within four years of completing the course.

CONCLUSIONS

RU and some of its components (pursuing a literature search, making a practice change) are not processes that most nurses are familiar with, but these processes can be taught to nurses with focused clinical concerns.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

An RU course with a low faculty-to-student ratio, adequate course materials, and systematic instruction can lead to research-based changes in practice.

Cancer pain management and the JCAHO's pain standards: an institutional challenge

Unrelieved pain is a major medical problem. In response to this problem, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) launched new standards for pain management in 1999. A review was conducted in five hospitals of 117 charts of 80 inpatients and 37 outpatients with cancer who had pain documented in their medical records to determine whether application of these JCAHO standards was documented. Pain assessment and management were not documented for most patients. Pain intensity was noted for 57% of outpatients and 53% of inpatients. When pain was documented, treatment was noted in 86% of outpatients' charts and 89% of inpatients' charts. Of those patients with documented pain, reassessment after treatment was reported in 34% of the outpatient charts and 44% of the inpatient charts. Work to properly manage cancer pain needs to continue, and the JCAHO standards provide a mechanism to evaluate practice documentation in order to improve care.