BACKGROUND: The Stop Cancer PAIN Trial was a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial which compared effectiveness of screening and guidelines with or without implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending six Australian outpatient comprehensive cancer centres (n = 688). A system for pain screening was introduced before observation of a \'control\' phase. Implementation strategies introduced in the \'intervention\' phase included: (1) audit of adherence to guideline recommendations, with feedback to clinical teams; (2) health professional education via an email-administered \'spaced education\' module; and (3) a patient education booklet and self-management resource. Selection of strategies was informed by the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) Model (Michie et al., 2011) and evidence for each strategy\'s stand-alone effectiveness. A consultant physician at each centre supported the intervention as a \'clinical champion\'. However, fidelity to the intervention was limited, and the Trial did not demonstrate effectiveness. This paper reports a sub-study of the Trial which aimed to identify factors inhibiting or enabling fidelity to inform future guideline implementation initiatives.
METHODS: The qualitative sub-study enabled in-depth exploration of factors from the perspectives of personnel at each centre. Clinical champions, clinicians and clinic receptionists were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Analysis used a framework method and a largely deductive approach based on the COM-B Model.
RESULTS: Twenty-four people participated, including 15 physicians, 8 nurses and 1 clinic receptionist. Coding against the COM-B Model identified \'capability\' to be the most influential component, with \'opportunity\' and \'motivation\' playing largely subsidiary roles. Findings suggest that fidelity could have been improved by: considering the readiness for change of each clinical setting; better articulating the intervention\'s value proposition; defining clinician roles and responsibilities, addressing perceptions that pain care falls beyond oncology clinicians\' scopes of practice; integrating the intervention within existing systems and processes; promoting patient-clinician partnerships; investing in clinical champions among senior nursing and junior medical personnel, supported by medical leaders; and planning for slow incremental change rather than rapid uptake.
CONCLUSIONS: Future guideline implementation interventions may require a \'meta-implementation\' approach based on complex systems theory to successfully integrate multiple strategies.
BACKGROUND: Registry: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; number: ACTRN 12615000064505; data: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspxid=367236&isReview=true .

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The frequency of performance of interventional techniques in chronic pain patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy continues to increase. Understanding the importance of continuing chronic anticoagulant therapy, the need for interventional techniques, and determining the duration and discontinuation or temporary suspension of anticoagulation is crucial to avoiding devastating complications, primarily when neuraxial procedures are performed. Anticoagulants and antiplatelets target the clotting system, increasing the bleeding risk. However, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs exposes patients to thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. These guidelines summarize the current peer reviewed literature and develop consensus-based guidelines based on the best evidence synthesis for patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy during interventional procedures.
METHODS: Review of the literature and development of guidelines based on best evidence synthesis.
OBJECTIVE: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding the assessment of bleeding and thrombosis risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet medications.
METHODS: Development of consensus guidelines based on best evidence synthesis included review of the literature on bleeding risks during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. A multidisciplinary panel of experts developed methodology, risk stratification based on best evidence synthesis, and management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. It also included risk of cessation of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy based on a multitude of factors. Multiple data sources on bleeding risk, practice patterns, risk of thrombosis, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy were identified. The relevant literature was identified through searches of multiple databases from 1966 through 2023. In the development of consensus statements and guidelines, we used a modified Delphi technique, which has been described to minimize bias related to group interactions. Panelists without a primary conflict of interest voted on approving specific guideline statements. Each panelist could suggest edits to the guideline statement wording and could suggest additional qualifying remarks or comments as to the implementation of the guideline in clinical practice to achieve consensus and for inclusion in the final guidelines, each guideline statement required at least 80% agreement among eligible panel members without primary conflict of interest.
RESULTS: A total of 34 authors participated in the development of these guidelines. Of these, 29 participated in the voting process. A total of 20 recommendations were developed. Overall, 100% acceptance was obtained for 16 of 20 items. Total items were reduced to 18 with second and third round voting. The final results were 100% acceptance for 16 items (89%). There was disagreement for 2 statements (statements 6 and 7) and recommendations by 3 authors. These remaining 2 items had an acceptance of 94% and 89%. The disagreement and dissent were by Byron J. Schneider, MD, with recommendation that all transforaminals be classified into low risk, whereas Sanjeeva Gupta, MD, desired all transforaminals to be in intermediate risk. The second disagreement was related to Vivekanand A. Manocha, MD, recommending that cervical and thoracic transforaminal to be high risk procedures.Thus, with appropriate literature review, consensus-based statements were developed for the perioperative management of patients receiving anticoagulants and antiplatelets These included the following: estimation of the thromboembolic risk, estimation of bleeding risk, and determination of the timing of restarting of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.Risk stratification was provided classifying the interventional techniques into three categories of low risk, moderate or intermediate risk, and high risk. Further, on multiple occasions in low risk and moderate or intermediate risk categories, recommendations were provided against cessation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: The continued paucity of literature with discordant recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the review of available literature, published clinical guidelines, and recommendations, a multidisciplinary panel of experts presented guidelines in managing interventional techniques in patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative period. These guidelines provide a comprehensive assessment of classification of risk, appropriate recommendations, and recommendations based on the best available evidence.

BACKGROUND: There is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit.
METHODS: Development of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed.
RESULTS: This guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections.
CONCLUSIONS: In this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: We assumed that in Palliative Care, even in common clinical situations, the choice of drugs differs substantially between physicians. Therefore, we assessed the practice of pharmaceutical treatment choices of physicians for cancer pain and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the rationale for their choices.
METHODS: An online survey was conducted with physicians covering the following domains: i) Cancer pain therapy: non-opioids in addition to opioids: choice of drug ii) prevention of OINV: choice of drug and mode of application. Current guidelines concerning cancer pain therapy and prevention of OINV were compared.
RESULTS: Two-hundred-forty European physicians responded to our survey. i) Use of non-opioids in addition to opioids for the treatment of cancer pain: Only 1.3% (n = 3) of respondents never used an additional non-opioid. Others mostly used: dipyrone/metamizole (49.2%, n = 118), paracetamol/acetaminophen (34.2%, n = 82), ibuprofen / other NSAIDs (11.3%, n = 27), specific Cox2-inhibitors (2.1%, n = 5), Aspirin (0.4%, n = 1), no answer (2.9%, n = 7). ii) Antiemetics to prevent OINV: The drugs of choice were metoclopramide (58.3%, n = 140), haloperidol (26.3%, n = 63), 5-HT3 antagonists (9.6%, n = 23), antihistamines (1.3%, n = 3) and other (2.9%, n = 7); no answer (1.7%, n = 4). Most respondents prescribed the substances on-demand (59.6%, n = 143) while others (36.3%, n = 87) provided them as around the clock medication. Over both domains, most physicians answered that their choices were not based on solid evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Guidelines were inconsistent regarding if and what non-opioid to use for cancer pain and recommend anti-dopaminergic drugs for prevention or treatment of OINV.
CONCLUSIONS: Physician\'s practice in palliative care for the treatment of cancer pain and OINV differed substantially. Respondents expressed the lack of high-quality evidence- based information from RCTs. We call for evidence from methodologically high-quality RCTs to be available to inform physicians about the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments for common symptoms in palliative care.

UNASSIGNED: Traumatic rib fractures present a considerable risk to patient well-being, contributing to morbidity and mortality in trauma patients. To address the risks associated with rib fractures, evidence-based interventions have been implemented, including effective pain management, pulmonary hygiene, and early walking. Vancouver General Hospital, a level 1 trauma center in British Columbia, Canada, developed a comprehensive multidisciplinary chest trauma clinical practice guideline (CTCPG) to optimize the management of patients with rib fractures. This prospective cohort study aimed to assess the impact of the CTCPG on pain management interventions and patient outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: The study involved patients admitted between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021 (post-CTCPG cohort) and a historical control group admitted between November 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 (pre-CTCPG cohort). Patient data were collected from patient charts and the British Columbia Trauma Registry, including demographics, injury characteristics, pain management interventions, and relevant outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Implementation of the CTCPG resulted in an increased use of multimodal pain therapy (99.4% vs 96.1%; p=0.03) and a significant reduction in the incidence of delirium in the post-CTCPG cohort (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.80, p=0.0099). There were no significant differences in hospital length of stay, ICU (intensive care unit) days, non-invasive positive pressure ventilation requirement, ventilator days, pneumonia incidence, or mortality between the two cohorts.
UNASSIGNED: Adoption of a CTCPG improved chest trauma management by enhancing pain management and reducing the incidence of delirium. Further research, including multicenter studies, is warranted to validate these findings and explore additional potential benefits of the CTCPG in the management of chest trauma patients.
UNASSIGNED: IIb.

The American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology Practice Committee and subject matter experts recently evaluated newly published cannabis guidelines titled \"ASRA Pain Medicine Consensus Guidelines on the Management of the Perioperative Patient on Cannabis and Cannabinoids.\" A summative review of the evidence-based guidelines provides essential recommendations, which are directly applicable to certified registered nurse anesthetist clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the publication of hundreds of trials on obstetric anaesthesia, the management of these conditions remains suboptimal. We aimed to assess the quality and consistency of guidance documents for obstetric anaesthesia.
METHODS: This is a systematic review and quality assessment using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II methodology.
METHODS: Data sources include PubMed and Embase (8 June 2023), three Chinese academic databases, six guideline databases (7 June 2023) and Google and Google scholar (1 August 2023).
METHODS: We included the latest version of international and national/regional clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements for the anaesthetic management of pregnant patients during labour, non-operative delivery, operative delivery and selected aspects of perioperative monitoring, postpartum care and analgesia, published in English or Chinese.
METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened the searched items and extracted data. Four reviewers independently scored documents using AGREE II. Recommendations from all documents were tabulated and visualised in a coloured grid.
RESULTS: Twenty-two guidance documents (14 clinical practice guidelines and 8 consensus statements) were included. Included documents performed well in the domains of scope and purpose (median 76.4%, IQR 69.4%-79.2%) and clarity of presentation (median 72.2%, IQR 61.1%-80.6%), but were unsatisfactory in applicability (median 21.9%, IQR 13.5%-27.1%) and editorial independence (median 47.9%, IQR 6.3%-73.2%). The majority of obstetric anaesthesia guidelines or consensus centred on different topics. Less than 30% of them specifically addressed the management of obstetric anaesthesia perioperatively. Recommendations were concordant on the perioperative preparation, and on some indications for the choice of anaesthesia method. Substantially different recommendations were provided for some items, especially for preoperative blood type and screen, and for the types and doses of neuraxial administration.
CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality in guidance documents for obstetric anaesthesia necessitates enhancement. Despite numerous trials in this area, evidence gaps persist for specific clinical queries in this field. One potential approach to mitigate these challenges involves the endorsement of standardised guidance development methods and the synthesis of robust clinical evidence, aimed at diminishing difference in recommendations.