A GAP analysis of the current state of Pain Management Services in the UK, 2024

Sue Copley , Beatrice Bretherton , Suzanne Carty , Matthew Brown , Sailesh Mishra , Emmy Kato Clarke , Ganesan Baranidharan , Devjit Srivastava , GAP Analysis Working Group
{"title":"A GAP analysis of the current state of Pain Management Services in the UK, 2024","authors":"Sue Copley ,&nbsp;Beatrice Bretherton ,&nbsp;Suzanne Carty ,&nbsp;Matthew Brown ,&nbsp;Sailesh Mishra ,&nbsp;Emmy Kato Clarke ,&nbsp;Ganesan Baranidharan ,&nbsp;Devjit Srivastava ,&nbsp;GAP Analysis Working Group","doi":"10.1016/j.bjao.2025.100414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In the UK, multidisciplinary services for patients experiencing chronic pain are currently commissioned by the NHS as specialised services. Pain services across the UK were placed under significant strain during the COVID pandemic. The ‘GAP Analysis working group’ (GAP group) was commissioned by the Board of the Faculty of Pain Medicine (FPM) in November 2021 to evaluate the post-COVID state of pain services across the country.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The GAP group's remit was to establish any deficit in pain services when measured against the service ‘gold standard’ outlined in the published FPM document ‘Core Standards for Pain Management Services volume 2.0’ (CSPMS). A survey was developed using an iterative consensus process among the group and was distributed to all FPM members.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The survey included questions pertaining to 21 standards. There were 164 respondents to this GAP analysis from 97 individual clinical sites delivering pain services in the UK. The majority of respondents worked in secondary care (74%), followed by tertiary care (23%) and finally primary care (3%). No single standard was met by all reporting sites. The degree of compliance with individual standards varied, ranging from only 30% of sites reporting full compliance (standard 9: research and development) to 79% of sites reporting full compliance (standard 21: interventional pain procedure).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The following aspects of chronic pain services need urgent redress: provision of paediatric pain services, provision of cancer pain services, outcome data management support, research and development, and increased support of psychological services and pain management programme access.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72418,"journal":{"name":"BJA open","volume":"14 ","pages":"Article 100414"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJA open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772609625000383","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

In the UK, multidisciplinary services for patients experiencing chronic pain are currently commissioned by the NHS as specialised services. Pain services across the UK were placed under significant strain during the COVID pandemic. The ‘GAP Analysis working group’ (GAP group) was commissioned by the Board of the Faculty of Pain Medicine (FPM) in November 2021 to evaluate the post-COVID state of pain services across the country.

Methods

The GAP group's remit was to establish any deficit in pain services when measured against the service ‘gold standard’ outlined in the published FPM document ‘Core Standards for Pain Management Services volume 2.0’ (CSPMS). A survey was developed using an iterative consensus process among the group and was distributed to all FPM members.

Results

The survey included questions pertaining to 21 standards. There were 164 respondents to this GAP analysis from 97 individual clinical sites delivering pain services in the UK. The majority of respondents worked in secondary care (74%), followed by tertiary care (23%) and finally primary care (3%). No single standard was met by all reporting sites. The degree of compliance with individual standards varied, ranging from only 30% of sites reporting full compliance (standard 9: research and development) to 79% of sites reporting full compliance (standard 21: interventional pain procedure).

Conclusions

The following aspects of chronic pain services need urgent redress: provision of paediatric pain services, provision of cancer pain services, outcome data management support, research and development, and increased support of psychological services and pain management programme access.
2024年英国疼痛管理服务现状的GAP分析
在英国,针对慢性疼痛患者的多学科服务目前由NHS委托作为专业服务。在COVID大流行期间,英国各地的疼痛服务承受着巨大压力。2021年11月,疼痛医学学院(FPM)董事会委托“GAP分析工作组”(GAP小组)评估全国后covid疼痛服务状态。方法GAP小组的职责是根据FPM文件“疼痛管理服务核心标准2.0卷”(CSPMS)中概述的服务“黄金标准”来衡量疼痛服务中的任何缺陷。在小组中使用迭代共识过程开发了一项调查,并分发给所有FPM成员。结果调查问题涉及21项标准。来自英国97个提供疼痛服务的临床站点的164名受访者参与了GAP分析。大多数受访者在二级医疗机构工作(74%),其次是三级医疗机构(23%),最后是初级医疗机构(3%)。所有的报道网站都没有达到单一的标准。遵守个别标准的程度各不相同,从只有30%的地点报告完全遵守(标准9:研究和开发)到79%的地点报告完全遵守(标准21:介入性疼痛手术)。结论慢性疼痛服务的以下方面急需纠正:提供儿科疼痛服务,提供癌症疼痛服务,结局数据管理支持,研究和开发,以及增加对心理服务和疼痛管理方案的支持。
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
BJA open
BJA open Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
83 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信