Adherence to ESMO guidelines on cancer pain management and their applicability to specialist palliative care centers: An observational, prospective, and multicenter study.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1111/papr.13418
L Carbonara, G Casale, M G De Marinis, C Bosetti, A Valle, P Carinci, M R D'andrea, O Corli
{"title":"Adherence to ESMO guidelines on cancer pain management and their applicability to specialist palliative care centers: An observational, prospective, and multicenter study.","authors":"L Carbonara, G Casale, M G De Marinis, C Bosetti, A Valle, P Carinci, M R D'andrea, O Corli","doi":"10.1111/papr.13418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pain management in late-stage cancer patients is a complex clinical problem. The historical guidelines were from the World Health Organization (WHO). Recently, ESMO produced guidelines consistent with 52 recommendations applicable to the entire period of disease since the pain appears.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the appropriateness and applicability of ESMO guidelines (EGL) in advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An observational, prospective, multicentric study conducted by specialist palliative care centers on cancer patients in the advanced stage. The 52 recommendations were divided into eight macro areas. The adherence levels were expressed as a percentage for each recommendation and have been broken down as high (>75%), medium (50%-75%), and low (<50%). In the case of not adhering to a recommendation, the comment was \"not applicable\" (NA) or not evaluable (NE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four hundred seventy-six patients were enrolled in the study. Thirty-five recommendations were considered NA or NE, especially because their application took too long to achieve clinical results, given the condition of the patients. Some interesting opinions on the choice of drugs emerged. At the end of the study, pain dropped from 5.0 to 2.6, patients' satisfaction increased from 3.3 to 4.6, and quality of life improved from 4.4 to 5.5.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Palliative physicians' adherence to EGL was medium. The main contribution of this study was to evaluate their applicability and clinical results in far-advanced patients assisted by palliative care. The selection of useful recommendations and expert opinions can make a contribution to clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13418","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pain management in late-stage cancer patients is a complex clinical problem. The historical guidelines were from the World Health Organization (WHO). Recently, ESMO produced guidelines consistent with 52 recommendations applicable to the entire period of disease since the pain appears.

Aim: To evaluate the appropriateness and applicability of ESMO guidelines (EGL) in advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care.

Method: An observational, prospective, multicentric study conducted by specialist palliative care centers on cancer patients in the advanced stage. The 52 recommendations were divided into eight macro areas. The adherence levels were expressed as a percentage for each recommendation and have been broken down as high (>75%), medium (50%-75%), and low (<50%). In the case of not adhering to a recommendation, the comment was "not applicable" (NA) or not evaluable (NE).

Results: Four hundred seventy-six patients were enrolled in the study. Thirty-five recommendations were considered NA or NE, especially because their application took too long to achieve clinical results, given the condition of the patients. Some interesting opinions on the choice of drugs emerged. At the end of the study, pain dropped from 5.0 to 2.6, patients' satisfaction increased from 3.3 to 4.6, and quality of life improved from 4.4 to 5.5.

Conclusions: Palliative physicians' adherence to EGL was medium. The main contribution of this study was to evaluate their applicability and clinical results in far-advanced patients assisted by palliative care. The selection of useful recommendations and expert opinions can make a contribution to clinical practice.

ESMO癌症疼痛管理指南的遵守情况及其对专科姑息治疗中心的适用性:一项观察性、前瞻性和多中心研究。
导言癌症晚期患者的疼痛治疗是一个复杂的临床问题。世界卫生组织(WHO)曾制定过相关指南。目的:评估ESMO指南(EGL)在接受姑息治疗的晚期癌症患者中的适宜性和适用性:方法:由专业姑息治疗中心对晚期癌症患者进行观察性、前瞻性、多中心研究。52 项建议被分为 8 个宏观领域。每项建议的遵从程度以百分比表示,并分为高(>75%)、中(50%-75%)和低(结果:研究共招募了 476 名患者。有 35 项建议被认为是 NA 或 NE,特别是因为考虑到患者的病情,这些建议的应用需要太长时间才能取得临床效果。在药物选择方面出现了一些有趣的观点。研究结束时,疼痛从5.0分降至2.6分,患者满意度从3.3分升至4.6分,生活质量从4.4分升至5.5分:姑息治疗医生对 EGL 的依从性为中等。本研究的主要贡献在于评估了其在姑息治疗辅助下对晚期患者的适用性和临床效果。选择有用的建议和专家意见可为临床实践做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信