Search

Introduction Pain associated with sickle cell disease (SCD) causes severe complications and frequent presentation to the emergency department (ED). Patients with SCD frequently report inadequate pain treatment in the ED, resulting in hospital admission. A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess a quality improvement project to standardize ED care for patients presenting with pain associated with SCD. Methods A 3-year prospective quality improvement initiative was performed. Our multidisciplinary team of providers implemented an ED order set in 2019 to improve care and provide adequate analgesia management. Our primary outcome was the overall hospital admission rate for patients after the intervention. Secondary outcome measures included ED disposition, rate of return to the ED within 72 hours, ED pain scores at admission and discharge, ED treatment time, in-patient length of stay, non-opioid medication use, and opioid medication use. Results There was an overall 67% reduction in the hospital admission rate after implementation of the order set (P = 0.005) and a significant decrease in the percentage admission rate month over month (P = 0.047). Time to the first non-opioid analgesic decreased by 71 minutes (P > 0.001), and there was no change in time to the first opioid medication. The rate of return to the ED within 72 hours remained unchanged (7.0% vs 7.1%) (P = 0.93), and the ED elopement rate remained unchanged (1.3% vs 1.85%) (P = 0.93). After the implementation, there were significant increases in the prescribing of orally administered acetaminophen (7%), celecoxib (1.2%), and tizanidine (12.5%) and intravenous ketamine (30.5%) and ketorolac (27%). ED pain scores at discharge were unchanged for both hospital-admitted (7.12 vs 7.08) (P = 0.93) and non-admitted (5.51 vs 6.11) (P = 0.27) patients. The resulting potential cost reduction was determined to be $193,440 during the 12-month observation period, with the mean cost per visit decreasing by $792. Conclusions Use of a standardized and multimodal ED order set reduced hospital admission rates and the timeliness of analgesia without negatively impacting patients’ pain.

ObjectiveThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) HEAL Initiative is making data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) to maximize the value of the unprecedented federal investment in pain and opioid-use disorder research. This involves standardizing the use of common data elements (CDE) for clinical research.MethodsThis work describes the process of the selection, processing, harmonization, and design constraints of CDE across a pain and opioid use disorder clinical trials network (NIH HEAL IMPOWR).ResultsThe network alignment allowed for incorporation of newer data standards across the clinical trials. Specific advances included geographic coding (RUCA), deidentified patient identifiers (GUID), shareable clinical survey libraries (REDCap), and concept mapping to standardized concepts (UMLS).ConclusionsWhile complex, harmonization across a network of chronic pain and opioid use disorder clinical trials with separate interventions can be optimized through use of CDEs and data standardization processes. This standardization process will support the robust secondary data analyses. Scaling this process could standardize CDE results across interventions or disease state which could help inform insurance companies or government organizations about coverage determinations. The development of the HEAL CDE program supports connecting isolated studies and solutions to each other, but the practical aspects may be challenging for some studies to implement. Leveraging tools and technology to simplify process and create ready to use resources may support wider adoption of consistent data standards.

This Practice Advisory presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of position statements and recommendations for the use of contrast media in interventional pain procedures. The advisory was established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of 11 multinational and multispecialty organizations based on a comprehensive review of the literature up to December 31, 2019. The advisory discusses the risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents. These include nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium brain deposition/retention, and encephalopathy and death after an unintentional intrathecal gadolinium injection. The advisory provides recommendations on the selection of a specific gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with renal insufficiency, those who had multiple gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations, and in cases of paraspinal injections. Additionally, recommendations are made for patients who have a history of mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity reactions to contrast medium.

ObjectivePatients with sickle cell disease (SCD) face inconsistent effective analgesic management, leading to high inpatient healthcare utilization and significant financial burden for healthcare institutions. Current evidence does not provide guidance for inpatient management of acute pain in adults with sickle cell disease. We conducted a retrospective analysis of a longitudinal cohort quality improvement project to characterize the role of individualized care plans on improving patient care and reducing financial burden in high healthcare-utilizing patients with SCD-related pain.MethodsIndividualized care plans were developed for patients with hospital admissions resulting from pain associated with sickle cell disease. A 2-year prospective longitudinal cohort quality improvement project was performed and retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome measure was duration of hospitalization. Secondary outcome measures included: pain intensity; 7, 30, and 90-day readmission rates; cost per day; total admissions; total cost per year; analgesic regimen at index admission; and discharge disposition.ResultsDuration of hospitalization, the primary outcome, significantly decreased by 1.23 days with no worsening of pain intensity scores. Seven-day readmission decreased by 34%. Use of intravenous hydromorphone significantly decreased by 25%. The potential cost saving was $1,398,827 as a result of this quality initiative.ConclusionsImplementation of individualized care plans reduced both admission rate and financial burden of high utilizing patients. Importantly, pain outcomes were not diminished. Results suggest that individualized care plans are a promising strategy for managing acute pain crisis in adult sickle cell patients from both care-focused and utilization outcomes.

Background Recruiting healthcare providers as research subjects often rely on in-person recruitment strategies. Little is known about recruiting provider participants via electronic recruitment methods. In this study, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, we describe and evaluate a primarily electronic approach to recruiting primary care providers (PCPs) as subjects in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a decision support intervention. Methods We adapted an existing framework for healthcare provider research recruitment, employing an electronic consent form and a mix of brief synchronous video presentations, email, and phone calls to recruit PCPs into the RCT. To evaluate the success of each electronic strategy, we estimated the number of consented PCPs associated with each strategy, the number of days to recruit each PCP and recruitment costs. Results We recruited 45 of 63 eligible PCPs practicing at ten primary care clinic locations over 55 days. On average, it took 17 business days to recruit a PCP (range 0–48) and required three attempts (range 1–7). Email communication from the clinic leaders led to the most successful recruitments, followed by brief synchronous video presentations at regularly scheduled clinic meetings. We spent approximately $89 per recruited PCP. We faced challenges of low email responsiveness and limited opportunities to forge relationships. Conclusion PCPs can be efficiently recruited at low costs as research subjects using primarily electronic communications, even during a time of high workload and stress. Electronic peer leader outreach and synchronous video presentations may be particularly useful recruitment strategies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04295135. Registered 04 March 2020.

Objective Given time constraints, poorly organized information, and complex patients, primary care providers (PCPs) can benefit from clinical decision support (CDS) tools that aggregate and synthesize problem-specific patient information. First, this article describes the design and functionality of a CDS tool for chronic noncancer pain in primary care. Second, we report on the retrospective analysis of real-world usage of the tool in the context of a pragmatic trial. Materials and methods The tool known as OneSheet was developed using user-centered principles and built in the Epic electronic health record (EHR) of 2 health systems. For each relevant patient, OneSheet presents pertinent information in a single EHR view to assist PCPs in completing guideline-recommended opioid risk mitigation tasks, review previous and current patient treatments, view patient-reported pain, physical function, and pain-related goals. Results Overall, 69 PCPs accessed OneSheet 2411 times (since November 2020). PCP use of OneSheet varied significantly by provider and was highly skewed (site 1: median accesses per provider: 17 [interquartile range (IQR) 9–32]; site 2: median: 8 [IQR 5–16]). Seven “power users” accounted for 70% of the overall access instances across both sites. OneSheet has been accessed an average of 20 times weekly between the 2 sites. Discussion Modest OneSheet use was observed relative to the number of eligible patients seen with chronic pain. Conclusions Organizations implementing CDS tools are likely to see considerable provider-level variation in usage, suggesting that CDS tools may vary in their utility across PCPs, even for the same condition, because of differences in provider and care team workflows.

Instrumented lumbar spinal fusion is common and results in biomechanical changes at adjacent spinal segments that increase facet load bearing. This can cause facet-mediated pain at levels adjacent to the surgical construct. Medial branch nerve radiofrequency ablation (RFA) exists as a treatment for some cases. It is important to acknowledge that the approach and instrumentation used during some specific lumbar fusion approaches will disrupt the medial branch nerve(s). Thus, the proceduralist must consider the fusion approach when determining which medial branch nerves are necessary to anesthetize for diagnosis and then to potentially target with RFA. This article discusses the relevant technical considerations for preparing for RFA to denervate lumbosacral facet joints adjacent to fusion constructs.

Objective Low back pain is one of the most common reasons for which people visit their doctor. Between 12% and 15% of the US population seek care for spine pain each year, with associated costs exceeding $200 billion. Up to 80% of adults will experience acute low back pain at some point in their lives. This staggering prevalence supports the need for increased research to support tailored clinical care of low back pain. This work proposes a multidimensional conceptual taxonomy. Methods A multidisciplinary task force of the ACTTION-APS-AAPM Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) with clinical and research expertise performed a focused review and analysis, applying the AAAPT five-dimensional framework to acute low back pain. Results Application of the AAAPT framework yielded the following: 1) Core Criteria: location, timing, and severity of acute low back pain were defined; 2) Common Features: character and expected trajectories were established in relevant subgroups, and common pain assessment tools were identified; 3) Modulating Factors: biological, psychological, and social factors that modulate interindividual variability were delineated; 4) Impact/Functional Consequences: domains of impact were outlined and defined; 5) Neurobiological Mechanisms: putative mechanisms were specified including nerve injury, inflammation, peripheral and central sensitization, and affective and social processing of acute low back pain. Conclusions The goal of applying the AAAPT taxonomy to acute low back pain is to improve its assessment through a defined evidence and consensus-driven structure. The criteria proposed will enable more rigorous meta-analyses and promote more generalizable studies of interindividual variation in acute low back pain and its potential underlying mechanisms.

Background:The management of acute and chronic pain for individuals living with sickle cell disease (SCD) is a clinical challenge. This reflects the paucity of clinical SCD pain research and limited understanding of the complex biological differences between acute and chronic pain. These issues collectively create barriers to effective, targeted interventions. Optimal pain management requires interdisciplinary care.Objective:These evidence-based guidelines developed by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in pain management decisions for children and adults with SCD.Methods:ASH formed a multidisciplinary panel, including 2 patient representatives, that was thoroughly vetted to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Research Program supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic reviews. Clinical questions and outcomes were prioritized according to importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE evidence-to-decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.Results:The panel reached consensus on 18 recommendations specific to acute and chronic pain. The recommendations reflect a broad pain management approach, encompassing pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions and analgesic delivery.Conclusions:Because of low-certainty evidence and closely balanced benefits and harms, most recommendations are conditional. Patient preferences should drive clinical decisions. Policymaking, including that by payers, will require substantial debate and input from stakeholders. Randomized controlled trials and comparative-effectiveness studies are needed for chronic opioid therapy, nonopioid therapies, and nonpharmacological interventions.

BackgroundThe past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of lumbar facet blocks and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat low back pain (LBP), yet nearly all aspects of the procedures remain controversial.MethodsAfter approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, letters were sent to a dozen pain societies, as well as representatives from the US Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense. A steering committee was convened to select preliminary questions, which were revised by the full committee. Questions were assigned to 4–5 person modules, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and Committee Chair on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee. We used a modified Delphi method, whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chair, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached.Results17 questions were selected for guideline development, with 100% consensus achieved by committee members on all topics. All societies except for one approved every recommendation, with one society dissenting on two questions (number of blocks and cut-off for a positive block before RFA), but approving the document. Specific questions that were addressed included the value of history and physical examination in selecting patients for blocks, the value of imaging in patient selection, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for block performance, the diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks (MBB) and intra-articular (IA) injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for a prognostic block, how many blocks should be performed before RFA, how electrodes should be oriented, the evidence for larger lesions, whether stimulation should be used before RFA, ways to mitigate complications, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and clinical trials and the evidence for repeating RFA (see table 12 for summary).ConclusionsLumbar medial branch RFA may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with MBB being more predictive than IA injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of more false-negatives. Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this qualitative study is to better understand primary care clinician decision making for managing chronic pain. Specifically, we focus on the factors that influence changes to existing chronic pain management plans. Limitations in guidelines and training leave clinicians to use their own judgement and experience in managing the complexities associated with treating patients with chronic pain. This study provides insight into those judgments based on clinicians’ first-person accounts. Insights gleaned from this study could inspire innovations aimed at supporting primary care clinicians (PCCs) in managing chronic pain. METHODS: We conducted 89 interviews with PCCs to obtain their first-person perspective of the factors that influenced changes in treatment plans for their patients. Interview transcripts were analyzed thematically by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, cognitive scientists, and public health researchers. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged through our analysis of factors that influenced a change in chronic pain management: (1) change in patient condition, (2) outcomes related to treatment, (3) non-adherent patient behavior, (4) insurance constraints, (5) change in guidelines, laws, or policies, (6) approaches to new patients, and (7) specialist recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis sheds light on the factors that lead PCCs to change treatment plans for patients with chronic pain. An understanding of these factors can inform the types of innovations needed to support PCCs in providing chronic pain care. We highlight key insights from our analysis and offer ideas for potential practice innovations.

Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. Results Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Surgical care episodes place opioid-naïve patients at risk for transitioning to new persistent postoperative opioid use. With one of the central principles being the application of multimodal pain interventions to reduce the reliance on opioid-based medications, enhanced recovery pathways provide a framework that decreases perioperative opioid use. The fourth Perioperative Quality Initiative brought together a group of international experts representing anesthesiology, surgery, and nursing with the objective of providing consensus recommendations on this important topic. Fourth Perioperative Quality Initiative was a consensus-building conference designed around a modified Delphi process in which the group alternately convened for plenary discussion sessions in between small group discussions. The process included several iterative steps including a literature review of the topics, building consensus around the important questions related to the topic, and sequential steps of content building and refinement until agreement was achieved and a consensus document was produced. During the fourth Perioperative Quality Initiative conference and thereafter as a writing group, reference applicability to the topic was discussed in any area where there was disagreement. For this manuscript, the questions answered included (1) What are the potential strategies for preventing persistent postoperative opioid use? (2) Is opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia feasible and appropriate for routine operations? and (3) Is opioid-free (intraoperative) anesthesia associated with equivalent or superior outcomes compared to an opioid minimization in the perioperative period? We will discuss the relevant literature for each questions, emphasize what we do not know, and prioritize the areas for future research.

Persistent postoperative opioid use is thought to contribute to the ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States. However, efforts to study and address the issue have been stymied by the lack of a standard definition, which has also hampered efforts to measure the incidence of and risk factors for persistent postoperative opioid use. The objective of this systematic review is to (1) determine a clinically relevant definition of persistent postoperative opioid use, and (2) characterize its incidence and risk factors for several common surgeries. Our approach leveraged a group of international experts from the Perioperative Quality Initiative-4, a consensus-building conference that included representation from anesthesiology, surgery, and nursing. A search of the medical literature yielded 46 articles addressing persistent postoperative opioid use in adults after arthroplasty, abdominopelvic surgery, spine surgery, thoracic surgery, mastectomy, and thoracic surgery. In opioid-naive patients, the overall incidence ranged from 2% to 6% based on moderate-level evidence. However, patients who use opioids preoperatively had an incidence of >30%. Preoperative opioid use, depression, factors associated with the diagnosis of substance use disorder, preoperative pain, and tobacco use were reported risk factors. In addition, while anxiety, sex, and psychotropic prescription are associated with persistent postoperative opioid use, these reports are based on lower level evidence. While few articles addressed the health policy or prescriber characteristics that influence persistent postoperative opioid use, efforts to modify prescriber behaviors and health system characteristics are likely to have success in reducing persistent postoperative opioid use.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how primary care clinicians (PCCs) approach chronic pain management in the current climate of rapidly changing guidelines and the growing body of research about risks and benefits of opioid therapy. OBJECTIVE: To better understand PCCs’ approaches to managing patients with chronic pain and explore implications for technological and administrative interventions. DESIGN: We conducted adapted critical decision method interviews with 20 PCCs. Each PCC participated in 1–5 interviews. PARTICIPANTS: PCCs interviewed had a mean of 14 years of experience. They were sampled from 13 different clinics in rural, suburban, and urban health settings across the state of Indiana. APPROACH: Interviews included discussion of participants’ general approach to managing chronic pain, as well as in-depth discussion of specific patients with chronic pain. Interviews were audio recorded. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. KEY RESULTS: PCCs reflected on strategies they use to encourage and motivate patients. We identified four associated strategic themes: (1) developing trust, (2) eliciting information from the patient, (3) diverting attention from pain to function, and (4) articulating realistic goals for the patient. In discussion of chronic pain management, PCCs often explained their beliefs about opioid therapy. Three themes emerged: (1) Opioid use tends to reduce function, (2) Opioids are often not effective for long-term pain treatment, and (3) Response to pain and opioids is highly variable. CONCLUSIONS: PCC beliefs about opioid therapy generally align with the clinical evidence, but may have some important gaps. These findings suggest the potential value of interventions that include improved access to research findings; organizational changes to support PCCs in spending time with patients to develop rapport and trust, elicit information about pain, and manage patient expectations; and the need for innovative clinical cognitive support. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06178-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In adults with sickle cell disease (SCD), pain often necessitates opioid use. Few studies have examined the relationship between opioid use and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in adults with SCD. We tested the hypothesis that higher doses of opioids are associated with worse HRQOL.A cross-sectional cohort study was performed in adults with SCD who completed standardized and validated HRQOL questionnaires: Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Medical Outcome Study 36 Item Short Form (SF-36), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder questionnaire (GAD-7). Daily outpatient opioid dose was converted into morphine milligram equivalents (MME) and categorized as 90 mg/day or ≥ 90 mg/day. Subject's questionnaire scores were compared by opioid dose.Ninety-nine adults completed questionnaires. The majority had HbSS and median age was 30 years. The median MME was 80 mg/day. When the association between HRQOL and opioid dose was compared, those prescribed ≥ 90 MME had significantly lower SF-36 subscale scores in 7 of 8 domains, and significantly higher severity scores in the PHQ-15, GAD-7, and the PHQ-9 in comparison those prescribed 90 MME. Using a multivariable regression tree analysis, in addition to the presence of chronic pain, mental health, physical health, and somatic burden were key predictors of ≥ 90 MME opioid use.Higher daily opioid dose is associated with chronic pain. Among those with chronic pain, opioid dose ≥ 90 MME is associated with worse HRQOL.

Chronic pain leads to reduced quality of life for patients, and strains health systems worldwide. In the U.S. and some other countries, the complexities of caring for chronic pain are exacerbated by individual and public health risks associated with commonly used opioid analgesics. To help understand and improve pain care, this article uses the data-frame theory of sensemaking to explore how primary care clinicians in the U.S. manage their patients with chronic noncancer pain. We conducted Critical Decision Method interviews with 10 primary care clinicians about 30 individual patients with chronic pain. In these interviews, we identified several patient, social/environmental, and clinician factors that influence the frames clinicians use to assess their patients and determine a pain management plan. Findings suggest significant ambiguity and uncertainty in clinical pain management decision making. Therefore, interventions to improve pain care might focus on supporting sensemaking in the context of clinical evidence rather than attempting to provide clinicians with decontextualized and/or algorithm-based decision rules. Interventions might focus on delivering convenient and easily interpreted patient and social/environmental information in the context of clinical practice guidelines.

We all have received this type of question from our surgical or anesthesiologist colleagues, trainees or advanced practice providers. ‘I am seeing this 38-year-old who is having a [fill in surgery] in 2 days. She’s on buprenorphine; what you think I should do?’ At its core, the question is ‘

Chronic pain exerts a tremendous burden on individuals and societies. If one views chronic pain as a single disease entity, then it is the most common and costly medical condition. At present, medical professionals who treat patients in chronic pain are recommended to provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary treatments, which may include pharmacotherapy. Many providers employ non-opioid medications to treat chronic pain, however, for some patients, opioid analgesics are the exclusive treatment of chronic pain. However, there is currently an epidemic of opioid use in the United States, and recent guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have recommended that the use of opioids for non-malignant chronic pain be used only in certain circumstances. The goal of this review was to report the current body of evidence-based medicine gained from prospective, randomized-controlled, blinded studies on the use of non-opioid analgesics for the most common non-cancer chronic pain conditions. A total of 9566 studies were obtained during literature searches and 271 of these met inclusion for this review. Overall, while many non-opioid analgesics have been found to be effective in reducing pain for many chronic pain conditions, it is evident that the number of high-quality studies is lacking and the effect sizes noted in many studies is not considered to be clinically significant despite statistical significance. More research is needed to determine effective and mechanisms-based treatments for the chronic pain syndromes discussed in this review. Utilization of rigorous and homogeneous research methodology would likely allow for better consistency and reproducibility, which is of utmost importance in guiding evidence-based care.

Objective With the increasing societal awareness of the prevalence and impact of acute pain, there is a need to develop an acute pain classification system that both reflects contemporary mechanistic insights and helps guide future research and treatment. Existing classifications of acute pain conditions are limiting, with a predominant focus on the sensory experience (e.g., pain intensity) and pharmacologic consumption. Consequently, there is a need to more broadly characterize and classify the multidimensional experience of acute pain. Setting Consensus report following expert panel involving the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), American Pain Society (APS), and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM). Methods As a complement to a taxonomy recently developed for chronic pain, the ACTTION public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, the APS, and the AAPM convened a consensus meeting of experts to develop an acute pain taxonomy using prevailing evidence. Key issues pertaining to the distinct nature of acute pain are presented followed by the agreed-upon taxonomy. The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Future efforts will consist of working groups utilizing this taxonomy to develop diagnostic criteria for a comprehensive set of acute pain conditions. Perspective The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) is a multidimensional acute pain classification system designed to classify acute pain along the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Conclusions Significant numbers of patients still suffer from significant acute pain, despite the advent of modern multimodal analgesic strategies. Mismanaged acute pain has a broad societal impact as significant numbers of patients may progress to suffer from chronic pain. An acute pain taxonomy provides a much-needed standardization of clinical diagnostic criteria, which benefits clinical care, research, education, and public policy. For the purposes of the present taxonomy, acute pain is considered to last up to seven days, with prolongation to 30 days being common. The current understanding of acute pain mechanisms poorly differentiates between acute and chronic pain and is often insufficient to distinguish among many types of acute pain conditions. Given the usefulness of the AAPT multidimensional framework, the AAAPT undertook a similar approach to organizing various acute pain conditions.

OBJECTIVE: With the increasing societal awareness of the prevalence and impact of acute pain, there is a need to develop an acute pain classification system that both reflects contemporary mechanistic insights and helps guide future research and treatment. Existing classifications of acute pain conditions are limiting, with a predominant focus on the sensory experience (eg, pain intensity) and pharmacologic consumption. Consequently, there is a need to more broadly characterize and classify the multidimensional experience of acute pain.SETTING: Consensus report following expert panel involving the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION), American Pain Society (APS), and American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM).METHODS: As a complement to a taxonomy recently developed for chronic pain, the ACTTION public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, the APS, and the AAPM convened a consensus meeting of experts to develop an acute pain taxonomy using prevailing evidence. Key issues pertaining to the distinct nature of acute pain are presented followed by the agreed-upon taxonomy. The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms. Future efforts will consist of working groups utilizing this taxonomy to develop diagnostic criteria for a comprehensive set of acute pain conditions.PERSPECTIVE: The ACTTION-APS-AAPM Acute Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) is a multidimensional acute pain classification system designed to classify acute pain along the following dimensions: 1) core criteria, 2) common features, 3) modulating factors, 4) impact/functional consequences, and 5) putative pathophysiologic pain mechanisms.CONCLUSIONS: Significant numbers of patients still suffer from significant acute pain, despite the advent of modern multimodal analgesic strategies. Mismanaged acute pain has a broad societal impact as significant numbers of patients may progress to suffer from chronic pain. An acute pain taxonomy provides a much-needed standardization of clinical diagnostic criteria, which benefits clinical care, research, education, and public policy. For the purposes of the present taxonomy, acute pain is considered to last up to seven days, with prolongation to 30 days being common. The current understanding of acute pain mechanisms poorly differentiates between acute and chronic pain and is often insufficient to distinguish among many types of acute pain conditions. Given the usefulness of the AAPT multidimensional framework, the AAAPT undertook a similar approach to organizing various acute pain conditions.

Background For complex patients with chronic conditions, electronic health records (EHRs) contain large amounts of relevant historical patient data. To use this information effectively, clinicians may benefit from visual information displays that organize and help them make sense of information on past and current treatments, outcomes, and new treatment options. Unfortunately, few clinical decision support tools are designed to support clinical sensemaking. Objective The objective of this study was to describe a decision-centered design process, and resultant interactive patient information displays, to support key clinical decision requirements in chronic noncancer pain care. Methods To identify key clinical decision requirements, we conducted critical decision method interviews with 10 adult primary care clinicians. Next, to identify key information needs and decision support design seeds, we conducted a half-day multidisciplinary design workshop. Finally, we designed an interactive prototype to support the key clinical decision requirements and information needs uncovered during the previous research activities. Results The resulting Chronic Pain Treatment Tracker prototype summarizes the current treatment plan, past treatment history, potential future treatments, and treatment options to be cautious about. Clinicians can access additional details about each treatment, current or past, through modal views. Additional decision support for potential future treatments and treatments to be cautious about is also provided through modal views. Conclusion This study designed the Chronic Pain Treatment Tracker, a novel approach to decision support that presents clinicians with the information they need in a structure that promotes quick uptake, understanding, and action.

This review explores foundational content relevant to the careers of junior investigators in pain clinical trails., Introduction: Clinical investigation serves a vital role to advance treatment and management strategies for patients with pain. For those new to clinical investigation, key advice for both the novice clinical investigator and the experienced researcher expanding to translational work may accelerate research efforts. Objective: To review foundational material relevant to junior investigators focusing on pain clinical trials, with an emphasis on randomized controlled trials. Methods: We reviewed recent publications and resources relevant to clinical investigators, with a particular emphasis on pain research. Results: Understanding the approaches and barriers to clinical pain research is a first step to building a successful investigative portfolio. Key components of professional development include motivation, mentorship, and collaborative approaches to research. Many junior clinical investigators face challenges in pursing research careers and sparking iterative progress toward success in clinical trials. Pain-specific research metrics and goals—including hypothesis development, study design considerations, and regulatory concerns—are also important considerations to junior investigators who pursue clinical trails. Approaches to build toward collaborative and independent funding are essential for investigators. Conclusion: This work provides a foundation for understanding the clinical research process and helps inform the goals and plans of clinical investigators.

BACKGROUND Low back pain is a costly healthcare problem and the leading cause of disability among adults in the United States. Primary care providers urgently need effective ways to deliver evidence-based, nonpharmacological therapies for chronic low back pain. Guidelines published by several government and national organizations have recommended nonpharmacological and nonopioid pharmacological therapies for low back pain. OBJECTIVE The Pain eHealth Platform (PEP) pilot trial aims to test the feasibility of a highly innovative intervention that (1) uses an electronic health record (EHR) query to systematically identify a phenotype of obese, older adults with chronic low back pain who may benefit from Web-based behavioral treatments; (2) delivers highly tailored messages to eligible older adults with chronic low back pain via the patient portal; (3) links affected patients to a Web app that provides education on the efficacy of evidence-based, nonpharmacological, behavioral pain treatments; and (4) directs patients to existing Web-based health treatment tools. METHODS Using a three-step modified Delphi method, an expert panel of primary care providers will define a low back pain phenotype for an EHR query. Using the defined low back pain phenotype, an EHR query will be created to identify patients who may benefit from the PEP. Up to 15 patients with low back pain will be interviewed to refine the tailored messaging, esthetics, and content of the patient-facing Web app within the PEP. Up to 10 primary care providers will be interviewed to better understand the facilitators and barriers to implementing the PEP, given their clinic workflow. We will assess the feasibility of the PEP in a single-arm pragmatic pilot study in which secure patient portal invitations containing a hyperlink to the PEP Web app are sent to 1000 patients. The primary outcome of the study is usability as measured by the System Usability Scale. RESULTS Qualitative interviews with primary care providers were completed in April 2019. Qualitative interviews with patients will begin in December 2019. CONCLUSIONS The PEP will leverage informatics and the patient portal to deliver evidence-based nonpharmacological treatment information to adults with chronic low back pain. Results from this study may help inform the development of Web-based health platforms for other pain and chronic health conditions. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/14525

Decision support system designs often do not align with the information environments in which clinicians work. These work environments may increase Clinicians’ cognitive workload and harm their decision making. The objective of this study was to identify information needs and decision support requirements for assessing, diagnosing, and treating chronic noncancer pain in primary care. We conducted a qualitative study involving 30 interviews with 10 primary care clinicians and a subsequent multidisciplinary systems design workshop. Our analysis identified four key decision requirements, eight clinical information needs, and four decision support design seeds. Our findings indicate that clinicians caring for chronic pain need decision support that aggregates many disparate information elements and helps them navigate and contextualize that information. By attending to the needs identified in this study, decision support designers may improve Clinicians’ efficiency, reduce mental workload, and positively affect patient care quality and outcomes.

Enhanced recovery pathways have quickly become part of the standard of care for patients undergoing elective surgery, especially in North America and Europe. One of the central tenets of this multidisciplinary approach is the use of multimodal analgesia with opioid-sparing and even opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia. However, the current state is a historically high use of opioids for both appropriate and inappropriate reasons, and patients with chronic opioid use before their surgery represent a common, often difficult-to-manage population for the enhanced recovery providers and health care team at large. Furthermore, limited evidence and few proven successful protocols exist to guide providers caring for these at-risk patients throughout their elective surgical experience. Therefore, the fourth Perioperative Quality Initiative brought together an international team of multidisciplinary experts, including anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, surgeons, pain specialists, neurologists, nurses, and other experts with the objective of providing consensus recommendations. Specifically, the goal of this consensus document is to minimize opioid-related complications by providing expert-based consensus recommendations that reflect the strength of the medical evidence regarding: (1) the definition, categorization, and risk stratification of patients receiving opioids before surgery; (2) optimal perioperative treatment strategies for patients receiving preoperative opioids; and (3) optimal discharge and continuity of care management practices for patients receiving opioids preoperatively. The overarching theme of this document is to provide health care providers with guidance to reduce potentially avoidable opioid-related complications including opioid dependence (both physical and behavioral), disability, and death. Enhanced recovery programs attempt to incorporate best practices into pathways of care. By presenting the available evidence for perioperative management of patients on opioids, this consensus panel hopes to encourage further development of pathways specific to this high-risk group to mitigate the often unintentional iatrogenic and untoward effects of opioids and to improve perioperative outcomes.

Background. Safe opioid prescribing and effective pain care are particularly important issues in the United States, where decades of widespread opioid prescribing have contributed to high rates of opioid use disorder. Because of the importance of clinician-patient communication in effective pain care and recent initiatives to curb rising opioid overdose deaths, this study sought to understand how clinicians and patients communicate about the risks, benefits, and goals of opioid therapy during primary care visits. Methods. We recruited clinicians and patients from six primary care clinics across three health systems in the Midwest United States. We audio-recorded 30 unique patients currently receiving opioids for chronic noncancer pain from 12 clinicians. We systematically analyzed transcribed, clinic visits to identify emergent themes. Results. Twenty of the 30 patient participants were females. Several patients had multiple pain diagnoses, with the most common diagnoses being osteoarthritis ( n = 10), spondylosis ( n = 6), and low back pain ( n = 5). We identified five themes: 1) communication about individual-level and population-level risks, 2) communication about policies or clinical guidelines related to opioids, 3) communication about the limited effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain conditions, 4) communication about nonopioid therapies for chronic pain, and 5) communication about the goal of the opioid tapering. Conclusions. Clinicians discuss opioid-related risks in varying ways during patient visits, which may differentially affect patient experiences. Our findings may inform the development and use of more standardized approaches to discussing opioids during primary care visits.

Health care providers use treatments whose effectiveness derives partially or completely from ‘nonspecific’ factors, frequently referred to as placebo effects. Although the ethics of interventional placebo use continues to be debated, evidence suggests that placebos can produce clinically meaningful analgesic effects. Burgeoning evidence suggest that patients with chronic pain might be open to placebo treatments in certain contexts despite limited knowledge of their well-established psychoneurobiological underpinnings. In this investigation we sought to examine the effects of a brief, mechanism-based placebo analgesia educational intervention on aspects placebo knowledge and acceptability. Participants with chronic musculoskeletal pain completed a web-based survey in which they rated their knowledge of placebo analgesia, assessed placebo acceptability across different medical contexts, and evaluated 6 unique patient–provider treatment scenarios to assess the role of treatment effectiveness and deception on patient–provider attributions. Using a pre–post design, participants were randomized to receive either a placebo educational intervention or an active control education. Results showed that the educational intervention greatly improved perceptions of placebo knowledge, effectiveness, and acceptability, even in deceptive treatment contexts. This was the first study of its kind to show the value of an educational intervention in increasing openness to and knowledge of placebo analgesic interventions among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Perspective In this we article highlight how patients with chronic pain might be open to placebo interventions, particularly adjunct and/or complementary treatments, when provided education on the neurobiological and psychological mechanisms that underlie placebo effects. Study findings highlight ethically acceptable ways to potentially use placebo factors to enhance existing pain treatments and improve patient health outcomes.

Background Low back pain is a costly healthcare problem and the leading cause of disability among adults in the United States. Primary care providers urgently need effective ways to deliver evidence-based, nonpharmacological therapies for chronic low back pain. Guidelines published by several government and national organizations have recommended nonpharmacological and nonopioid pharmacological therapies for low back pain. Objective The Pain eHealth Platform (PEP) pilot trial aims to test the feasibility of a highly innovative intervention that (1) uses an electronic health record (EHR) query to systematically identify a phenotype of obese, older adults with chronic low back pain who may benefit from Web-based behavioral treatments; (2) delivers highly tailored messages to eligible older adults with chronic low back pain via the patient portal; (3) links affected patients to a Web app that provides education on the efficacy of evidence-based, nonpharmacological, behavioral pain treatments; and (4) directs patients to existing Web-based health treatment tools. Methods Using a three-step modified Delphi method, an expert panel of primary care providers will define a low back pain phenotype for an EHR query. Using the defined low back pain phenotype, an EHR query will be created to identify patients who may benefit from the PEP. Up to 15 patients with low back pain will be interviewed to refine the tailored messaging, esthetics, and content of the patient-facing Web app within the PEP. Up to 10 primary care providers will be interviewed to better understand the facilitators and barriers to implementing the PEP, given their clinic workflow. We will assess the feasibility of the PEP in a single-arm pragmatic pilot study in which secure patient portal invitations containing a hyperlink to the PEP Web app are sent to 1000 patients. The primary outcome of the study is usability as measured by the System Usability Scale. Results Qualitative interviews with primary care providers were completed in April 2019. Qualitative interviews with patients will begin in December 2019. Conclusions The PEP will leverage informatics and the patient portal to deliver evidence-based nonpharmacological treatment information to adults with chronic low back pain. Results from this study may help inform the development of Web-based health platforms for other pain and chronic health conditions. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/14525

ObjectiveTo analyze the validity of the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) in a large. diverse population.DesignA cross-sectional descriptive study.SettingAcademic tertiary pain management center.SubjectsA total of 225 consecutive new patients, aged 18 years or older.MethodsData collection included demographics, ORT scores, aberrant behaviors, pain intensity scores, opioid type and dose, smoking status, employment, and marital status.ResultsIn this population, we were not able to replicate the findings of the initial ORT study. Self-report was no better than chance in predicting those who would have an opioid aberrant behavior. The ORT risk variables did not predict aberrant behaviors in either gender group. There was significant disparity in the scores between self-reported ORT and the ORT supplemented with medical record data (enhanced ORT). Using the enhanced ORT, high-risk patients were 2.5 times more likely to have an aberrant behavior than the low-risk group. The only risk variable associated with aberrant behavior was personal history of prescription drug misuse.ConclusionsThe self-report ORT was not a valid test for the prediction of future aberrant behaviors in this academic pain management population. The original risk categories (low, medium, high) were not supported in the either the self-reported version or the enhanced version; however, the enhanced data were able to differentiate between high- and low-risk patients. Unfortunately, without technological automation, the enhanced ORT suffers from practical limitations. The self-report ORT may not be a valid tool in current pain populations; however, modification into a binary (high/low) score system needs further study.

Cervical radicular pain is pain along a dermatomal pattern that is caused by the irritation of a nerve root. It is mediated by phospholipase A2, interleukins 1 and 6, TNF-α, and nitric oxide. Cervical radicular pain is often, but not always, associated with nerve root compression, as evidenced by a patient with radicular pain but without evidence of nerve root compression on imaging. Cervical radicular pain is a separate entity from cervical radiculopathy, which involves a sensory or motor deficit from a dysfunctional nerve pathway.

Background Given their ability to process highly dimensional datasets with hundreds of variables, machine learning algorithms may offer one solution to the vexing challenge of predicting postoperative pain. Methods Here, we report on the application of machine learning algorithms to predict postoperative pain outcomes in a retrospective cohort of 8,071 surgical patients using 796 clinical variables. Five algorithms were compared in terms of their ability to forecast moderate to severe postoperative pain: Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), gradient-boosted decision tree, support vector machine, neural network, and k-nearest neighbor (k-NN), with logistic regression included for baseline comparison. Results In forecasting moderate to severe postoperative pain for postoperative day (POD) 1, the LASSO algorithm, using all 796 variables, had the highest accuracy with an area under the receiver-operating curve (ROC) of 0.704. Next, the gradient-boosted decision tree had an ROC of 0.665 and the k-NN algorithm had an ROC of 0.643. For POD 3, the LASSO algorithm, using all variables, again had the highest accuracy, with an ROC of 0.727. Logistic regression had a lower ROC of 0.5 for predicting pain outcomes on POD 1 and 3. Conclusions Machine learning algorithms, when combined with complex and heterogeneous data from electronic medical record systems, can forecast acute postoperative pain outcomes with accuracies similar to methods that rely only on variables specifically collected for pain outcome prediction.

Sports and recreation-related concussions are common, with an annual incidence in the United States estimated to be between 1.6 and 3.8 million (19,20,22). The majority of these injuries are considered to be self-limited; however prolonged symptoms of greater than 3 months are not uncommon (5,10,25,27). In particular, delayed headache is associated with delayed recovery from concussion and increased risk of postconcussion syndrome (3,8,10). The pathophysiology of postconcussive headache is likely complex and multifactorial, involving both local injury as well as the activation of peripheral and central pain pathways. Occipital neuralgia (ON) is a known etiology of headaches and may stem from trauma to the neck, such as with a concussion or whiplash injury (23). ON also may feature symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, and photosensitivity that are associated commonly with concussion. Despite these features, ON may be an underappreciated cause of headache in sports-related concussion; a PubMed search returned only one reference when using the terms “sports” and “occipital neuralgia” (26). Due to the prominence of headache as a symptom in concussion, the potential for concomitant conditions such as ON arising from the same traumatic injury, and the overlapping symptomatology between these conditions, it is important that clinicians be able to recognize ON in the management of concussion. In this case series, we will report on our observation of ON as a significant factor in the postconcussion headaches and symptomatology of three patients. We also will present a brief review of the available literature on ON, with attention to its relevant anatomy, presentation, examination, and treatment.

Background Spinal cord stimulator (SCS) technology has advanced over the past several years. However, our literature review revealed a lack of well-documented cases of successful treatment of phantom limb pain with percutaneous revision of previously placed systems. Case Report We present the case of a patient who suffered from debilitating bilateral lower extremity phantom limb pain despite having a SCS with a constant voltage system. We used fluoroscopy to successfully guide a percutaneous octapolar paddle lead to the right of the existing surgical paddle lead and a cylindrical quadrapolar lead in between. Finally, the older paddle lead was connected to an extension to make it compatible with the updated constant current system. The revised constant current SCS system provided bilateral coverage of the patient's pain, and at 1-year postoperative, the patient reported he had sustained coverage from his bilateral phantom limb pain. Our patient had complete coverage of his phantom limb pain after his previously placed SCS was changed from a constant voltage to a constant current system, and percutaneous leads were connected to his system. Adding percutaneous leads or switching generator types may benefit patients whose pain patterns have expanded since original SCS system placement. This case reports the complete coverage of phantom limb pain with a change from a constant voltage to a constant current SCS system and the addition of percutaneous leads to an existing SCS system.