Management of chronic pain

When you have completed this chapter you will be able to: • recognise the scope and impact of chronic pain in Australia • discuss the relevance of a biopsychosocial model of chronic pain for persons with chronic illness and disability • identify key components of pain assessment • acknowledge the central role the person with chronic pain takes in the management of their health • identify a range of therapies available for the management of chronic pain

Pain : the views of elderly people living in long term residential care settings

While an individual's beliefs and attitudes have long been considered important factors in how people respond to pain, few studies have attempted to provide in-depth descriptions of the nature of such pain beliefs and attitudes The aim of this research was to investigate the views of pain and pain management practices held by elderly people living in long-term residential care settings Ten 60–90 minute focus group interviews, each involving around five elderly people, were conducted in four large, long-term residential care settings in Brisbane, Australia Categories of beliefs and attitudes regarding pain were identified following analysis of the verbatim transcripts of these interviews Findings suggest that many elderly people living in long-term residential care settings may have become resigned to pain, that they are ambivalent about the benefit of any action for their pain and that they may be reluctant to express their pain Implications of these beliefs and attitudes are discussed

The human μ-opioid receptor gene polymorphism (A118G) is associated with head pain severity in a clinical cohort of female migraine with aura patients

Migraine is a painful and debilitating, neurovascular disease. Current migraine head pain treatments work with differing efficacies in migraineurs. The opioid system plays an important role in diverse biological functions including analgesia, drug response and pain reduction. The A118G single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in exon 1 of the μ-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) has been associated with elevated pain responses and decreased pain threshold in a variety of populations. The aim of the current preliminary study was to test whether genotypes of the OPRM1 A118G SNP are associated with head pain severity in a clinical cohort of female migraineurs. This was a preliminary study to determine whether genotypes of the OPRM1 A118G SNP are associated with head pain severity in a clinical cohort of female migraineurs. A total of 153 chronic migraine with aura sufferers were assessed for migraine head pain using the Migraine Disability Assessment Score instrument and classified into high and low pain severity groups. DNA was extracted and genotypes obtained for the A118G SNP. Logistic regression analysis adjusting for age effects showed the A118G SNP of the OPRM1 gene to be significantly associated with migraine pain severity in the test population (P = 0.0037). In particular, G118 allele carriers were more likely to be high pain sufferers compared to homozygous carriers of the A118 allele (OR = 3.125, 95 % CI = 1.41, 6.93, P = 0.0037). These findings suggest that A118G genotypes of the OPRM1 gene may influence migraine-associated head pain in females. Further investigations are required to fully understand the effect of this gene variant on migraine head pain including studies in males and in different migraine subtypes, as well as in response to head pain medication.

How Can Models of Motor Control Be Useful for Understanding Low Back Pain?

Introduction. The purpose of this chapter is to address the question raised in the chapter title. Specifically, how can models of motor control help us understand low back pain (LBP)? There are several classes of models that have been used in the past for studying spinal loading, stability, and risk of injury (see Reeves and Cholewicki (2003) for a review of past modeling approaches), but for the purpose of this chapter we will focus primarily on models used to assess motor control and its effect on spine behavior. This chapter consists of 4 sections. The first section discusses why a shift in modeling approaches is needed to study motor control issues. We will argue that the current approach for studying the spine system is limited and not well-suited for assessing motor control issues related to spine function and dysfunction. The second section will explore how models can be used to gain insight into how the central nervous system (CNS) controls the spine. This segues segue nicely into the next section that will address how models of motor control can be used in the diagnosis and treatment of LBP. Finally, the last section will deal with the issue of model verification and validity. This issue is important since modelling accuracy is critical for obtaining useful insight into the behavior of the system being studied. This chapter is not intended to be a critical review of the literature, but instead intended to capture some of the discussion raised during the 2009 Spinal Control Symposium, with some elaboration on certain issues. Readers interested in more details are referred to the cited publications.

Understanding chronic pain complicating disability: Finding meaning through focus group methodology

Over the past few decades a major paradigm shift has occurred in the conceptualisation of chronic pain as a complex multidimensional phenomenon. Yet, pain experienced by individuals with a primary disability continues to be understood largely from a traditional biomedical model, despite its inherent limitations. This is reflected in the body of literature on the topic that is primarily driven by positivist assumptions and the search for etiologic pain mechanisms. Conversely, little is known about the experiences of and meanings attributed to, disability-related pain. Thus the purpose of this paper is to discuss the use of focus group methodology in elucidating the meanings and experiences of this population. Here, a distinction is made between the method of the focus group and focus group research as methodology. Typically, the focus group is presented as a seemingly atheoretical method of research. Drawing on research undertaken on the impact of chronic pain in people with multiple sclerosis, this paper seeks to theorise the focus group in arguing the methodological congruence of focus group research and the study of pain experience. It is argued that the contributions of group interaction and shared experiences in focus group discussions produce data and insights less accessible through more structured research methods. It is concluded that a biopsychosocial perspective of chronic pain may only ever be appreciated when the person-in-context is the unit of investigation.

A comparative analysis of risk stratification tools for emergency department patients with chest pain

Background: Appropriate disposition of emergency department (ED) patients with chest pain is dependent on clinical evaluation of risk. A number of chest pain risk stratification tools have been proposed. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive performance for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) using risk assessment tools from the National Heart Foundation of Australia (HFA), the Goldman risk score and the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (TIMI RS). Methods: This prospective observational study evaluated ED patients aged ≥30 years with non-traumatic chest pain for which no definitive non-ischemic cause was found. Data collected included demographic and clinical information, investigation findings and occurrence of MACE by 30 days. The outcome of interest was the comparative predictive performance of the risk tools for MACE at 30 days, as analyzed by receiver operator curves (ROC). Results: Two hundred eighty-one patients were studied; the rate of MACE was 14.1%. Area under the curve (AUC) of the HFA, TIMI RS and Goldman tools for the endpoint of MACE was 0.54, 0.71 and 0.67, respectively, with the difference between the tools in predictive ability for MACE being highly significant [chi2 (3) = 67.21, N = 276, p < 0.0001]. Conclusion: The TIMI RS and Goldman tools performed better than the HFA in this undifferentiated ED chest pain population, but selection of cutoffs balancing sensitivity and specificity was problematic. There is an urgent need for validated risk stratification tools specific for the ED chest pain population.

Visual analog scale and pressure pain threshold for delayed onset muscle soreness assessment

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between two assessments to quantify delayed onset muscle soreness [DOMS]: visual analog scale [VAS] and pressure pain threshold [PPT]. Methods: Thirty-one healthy young men [25.8 ± 5.5 years] performed 10 sets of six maximal eccentric contractions of the elbow flexors with their non-dominant arm. Before and one to four days after the exercise, muscle pain perceived upon palpation of the biceps brachii at three sites [5, 9 and 13 cm above the elbow crease] was assessed by VAS with a 100 mm line [0 = no pain, 100 = extremely painful], and PPT of the same sites was determined by an algometer. Changes in VAS and PPT over time were compared amongst three sites by a two-way repeated measures analysis of variance, and the relationship between VAS and PPT was analyzed using a Pearson product-moment correlation. Results: The VAS increased one to four days after exercise and peaked two days post-exercise, while the PPT decreased most one day post-exercise and remained below baseline for four days following exercise [p < 0.05]. No significant difference among the three sites was found for VAS [p = 0.62] or PPT [p = 0.45]. The magnitude of change in VAS did not significantly correlate with that of PPT [r = −0.20, p = 0.28]. Conclusion: These results suggest that the level of muscle pain is not region-specific, at least among the three sites investigated in the study, and VAS and PPT provide different information about DOMS, indicating that VAS and PPT represent different aspects of pain.

Advancing Nursing Practice in Pain Management

This book showcases the development and evaluation of innovative examples of pain management initiatives by advanced practitioners. It considers each service development or community initiative both in terms of advanced practice nursing and pain management. There is a wide range of examples of innovation in pain management included - from the introduction of ketamine use in one trust, to wider issues around meeting the needs of pain management in the community. The book considers issues including use of research, education and interprofessional working in the advanced practitioner role. Each chapter looks at development of the service, challenges of implementation, evaluation of the service's success and justifying the importance of the advanced nurse in the service's achievements.

Introduction to Advancing Practice in Pain Management

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Advanced practice The context of pain management: definitions and prevalence Advancing practice in pain management Bringing together advanced practice and pain management Conclusions References

Nurse Prescribing in Acute and Chronic Pain Management

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Acute pain Chronic pain Rationale for service development Evaluation use of audit and CPD Justifying the advanced nursing contribution to develop nurse prescribing in pain management Conclusions References

New Knowledge for Advancing Practice in Pain Management

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Advancing practice in pain management Conclusions References

Comparison of high sensitivity troponin T and I assays in the diagnosis of non-ST elevation acute myocardial infarction in emergency patients with chest pain

Objectives: Concentrations of troponin measured with high sensitivity troponin assays are raised in a number of emergency department (ED) patients; however many are not diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Clinical comparisons between the early use (2 h after presentation) of high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and I (hs-cTnI) assays for the diagnosis of AMI have not been reported. Design and methods: Early (0 h and 2 h) hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assay results in 1571 ED patients with potential acute coronary syndrome (ACS) without ST elevation on electrocardiograph (ECG) were evaluated. The primary outcome was diagnosis of index MI adjudicated by cardiologists using the local cTnI assay results taken ≥6 h after presentation, ECGs and clinical information. Stored samples were later analysed with hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI assays. Results: The ROC analysis for AMI (204 patients; 13.0%) for hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI after 2 h was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94–0.97) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97–0.99) respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PLR, and NLR of hs-cTnT and hs-cTnI for AMI after 2 h were 94.1% (95% CI: 90.0–96.6) and 95.6% (95% CI: 91.8–97.7), 79.0% (95% CI: 76.8–81.1) and 92.5% (95% CI: 90.9–93.7), 4.48 (95% CI: 4.02–5.00) and 12.86 (95% CI: 10.51–15.31), and 0.07 (95% CI: 0.04–0.13) and 0.05 (95% CI:0.03–0.09) respectively. Conclusions: Exclusion of AMI 2 h after presentation in emergency patients with possible ACS can be achieved using hs-cTnT or hs-cTnI assays. Significant differences in specificity of these assays are relevant and if using the hs-cTnT assay, further clinical assessment in a larger proportion of patients would be required.

Quantitative sensory measures distinguish office workers with varying levels of neck pain and disability

This study was undertaken to investigate any relationship between sensory features and neck pain in female office workers using quantitative sensory measures to better understand neck pain in this group. Office workers who used a visual display monitor for more than four hours per day with varying levels of neck pain and disability were eligible for inclusion. There were 85 participants categorized according to their scores on the neck disability index (NDI): 33 with no pain (NDI < 8); 38 with mild levels of pain and disability (NDI 9–29); 14 with moderate levels of pain (NDI ⩾ 30). A fourth group of women without neck pain (n = 22) who did not work formed the control group. Measures included: thermal pain thresholds over the posterior cervical spine; pressure pain thresholds over the posterior neck, trapezius, levator scapulae and tibialis anterior muscles, and the median nerve trunk; sensitivity to vibrotactile stimulus over areas of the hand innervated by the median, ulnar and radial nerves; sympathetic vasoconstrictor response. All tests were conducted bilaterally. ANCOVA models were used to determine group differences between the means for each sensory measure. Office workers with greater self-reported neck pain demonstrated hyperalgesia to thermal stimuli over the neck, hyperalgesia to pressure stimulation over several sites tested; hypoaesthesia to vibration stimulation but no changes in the sympathetic vasoconstrictor response. There is evidence of multiple peripheral nerve dysfunction with widespread sensitivity most likely due to altered central nociceptive processing initiated and sustained by nociceptive input from the periphery.