24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Minding the Gaps in Cancer Pain Management Education: A Multicenter Study of Clinical Residents and Fellows in a Low- Versus High-Resource Setting

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Inadequate pain management training has been reported as a major cause of undertreatment of cancer pain. Yet, past research has not comprehensively compared the quality of cancer pain management education among physicians in training in high-resource countries (HRCs) with those in low-resource countries (LRCs). The purpose of this study was to examine and compare gaps in cancer pain management education among physician trainees in an HRC (United States) versus an LRC (Ghana).

          Methods

          A cross section of physicians at four major academic medical centers completed surveys about the adequacy of cancer pain training. Participation in the study was completely voluntary, and paper or online surveys were completed anonymously.

          Results

          The response rate was 60% (N = 120). Major gaps were identified in cancer pain management education across the spectrum of medical school training. Training was rated as inadequate (by approximately 80% of trainees), although approximately 10% more trainees in HRCs versus LRCs felt this way; 35% said residency training was inadequate in both settings; and 50% in LRCs versus 44% in HRCs said fellowship training was less than good. On the basis of the lowest group means, the three key areas of perceived deficits included interventional pain procedures (2.34 ± 1.12), palliative care interventions (2.39 ± 1.12), and managing procedural and postoperative pain (2.94 ± 0.97), with significant differences in the distribution of deficits in 15 cancer-pain competencies between LRCs and HRCs ( P < .05).

          Conclusion

          This study identifies priority areas that could be targeted synergistically by LRCs and HRCs to advance cancer care globally. The findings underscore differential opportunities to broaden and improve competencies in cancer pain management via exchange training, in which physicians from HRCs spend time in LRCs and vice versa.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Palliative Care: the World Health Organization's global perspective.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Validation of World Health Organization Guidelines for cancer pain relief: a 10-year prospective study.

            This paper reports on the experience gained using World Health Organization Guidelines for cancer pain relief over a 10-year period in an anaesthesiology-based pain service associated with a palliative care programme. The course of treatment of 2118 patients was assessed prospectively over a period of 140,478 treatment days. Non-opioid analgesics (WHO step I) were used on 11%, weak opioids (WHO step II) on 31% and strong opioids (WHO step III) on 49% of treatment days. Administration was via the enteral route on 82% and parenterally on 9% of treatment days. On the remaining days, either spinally applied opioids (2%) or other treatments (6%) were utilised. Fifty-six percent of the patients were treated with morphine. Morphine dose escalation was observed in about one-half of the patients being cared for until death, whereas the other half had stable or decreasing doses over the course of treatment. Co-analgesics were administered on 37% of days, most often antidepressants (15%), anticonvulsants (13%) and corticosteroids (13%). Adjuvants to treat symptoms other than pain were prescribed on 79% of days, most commonly laxatives (42%), histamine-2-receptor antagonists (39%) and antiemetics (35%). In addition, palliative antineoplastic treatment was performed in 42%, nerve blocks in 8%, physiotherapy in 5%, psychotherapy in 3% and TENS in 3% of patients. A highly significant pain reduction was achieved within the 1st week of treatment (P < 0.001). Over the whole treatment period, good pain relief was reported in 76%, satisfactory efficacy in 12% and inadequate efficacy in 12% of patients. In the final days of life, 84% rated their pain as moderate or less, while 10% were unable to give a rating. Analgesics remained constantly effective in all 3 steps of the WHO ladder. Other clinical symptoms were likewise significantly reduced at 1 week after initial assessment, with the exception of neuropsychiatric symptoms. During the course of treatment, the latter were the major symptoms on 23% of days, followed by nausea (23%), constipation (23%) and anorexia (20%). Our results emphasise once again the marked efficacy and low rate of complications associated with oral and parenteral analgesic therapy as the mainstay of pain treatment in the palliative care of patients with advanced cancer. Wide dissemination of WHO guidelines among doctors and healthcare workers is thus necessary to effect a clear improvement in the treatment of the many patients suffering from cancer pain in the clinical and home setting.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              American pain society recommendations for improving the quality of acute and cancer pain management: American Pain Society Quality of Care Task Force.

              The American Pain Society (APS) set out to revise and expand its 1995 Quality Improvement Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain and to facilitate improvements in the quality of pain management in all care settings. Eleven multidisciplinary members of the APS with expertise in quality improvement or measurement participated in the update. Five experts from organizations that focus on health care quality reviewed the final recommendations. MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched (1994-2004) to identify articles on pain quality measurement and quality improvement published after the development of the 1995 guidelines. The APS task force revised and expanded recommendations on the basis of the systematic review of published studies. The more than 3000 members of the APS were invited to provide input, and the 5 experts provided additional comments. The task force synthesized reviewers' comments into the final set of recommendations. The recommendations specify that all care settings formulate structured, multilevel systems approaches (sensitive to the type of pain, population served, and setting of care) that ensure prompt recognition and treatment of pain, involvement of patients and families in the pain management plan, improved treatment patterns, regular reassessment and adjustment of the pain management plan as needed, and measurement of processes and outcomes of pain management. Efforts to improve the quality of pain management must move beyond assessment and communication of pain to implementation and evaluation of improvements in pain treatment that are timely, safe, evidence based, and multimodal.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Glob Oncol
                J Glob Oncol
                jgo
                jgo
                JGO
                Journal of global oncology
                American Society of Clinical Oncology
                2378-9506
                December 2016
                23 March 2016
                : 2
                : 6
                : 387-396
                Affiliations
                [1] Charles Amoatey Odonkor, Robert Samuel Mayer, and Thomas J. Smith, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; Ernest Osei-Bonsu, Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Kumasi; and Oswald Tetteh, Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, Accra, Ghana; and Andy Haig, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Charles A. Odonkor, MD, MA, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 N Wolfe St, Phipps 160, Baltimore, MD 21287; email: codonko2@ 123456jhmi.edu .
                Article
                003004
                10.1200/JGO.2015.003004
                5493248
                68a5aad6-f6aa-4403-b7c0-704d6a32adad
                © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

                Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 29, Pages: 10
                Categories
                Quality of Care
                Pain Control
                ORIGINAL REPORTS
                Palliative and Supportive Care
                Custom metadata
                v1

                Comments

                Comment on this article