黑料网

Cancer pain management; Comprehensive pain management; Inpatient specialized palliative care; Patient-reported outcomes; Multidisciplinary care; Clinicodemographic predictors; Personalized care plans; Patient-centered care

Introduction

Previous studies examining the duration required for alleviating cancer-related pain have primarily focused on outpatient settings, admittance to palliative care units or hospices, and weekly assessments [1,2]. Conversely, there is a lack of comprehensive data concerning the timeframe for achieving Comprehensive Pain Management (CPM) within the context of inpatient specialized palliative care (SPC) interventions led by certified palliative care physicians, advanced practice nurses, and a multidisciplinary palliative care team, which includes psycho-oncology physicians, pharmacists, medical social workers, rehabilitation specialists, dentists, and others. In light of the potential benefits of managing pain based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) [3,4 ], such as enhancing quality of life, alleviating symptoms, and improving patient satisfaction, several studies have assessed the efficacy of SPC in achieving CPM using PROs. However, these investigations were constrained by their focus on specific timeframes or weekly assessments. Furthermore, studies examining the duration to attain CPM predominantly relied on quantitative measures, such as pain reduction, rather than evaluating CPM in alignment with PROs. Moreover, the factors influencing the difficulty in achieving prompt CPM with SPC remain unidentified [5].

Continued investigation into the timeframe necessary to attain Comprehensive Pain Management (CPM) with Specialized Palliative Care (SPC), utilizing Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and objective pain score improvements, is of paramount importance. This study was designed to assess the duration needed to achieve CPM through the provision of SPC services by inpatient SPC consultation teams and within palliative care units. Additionally, we explored clinicodemographic factors that may predict refractory cancer pain, necessitating an extended treatment duration.

Cancer pain is a complex and distressing symptom that significantly impacts the quality of life for patients facing this challenging disease. While there have been previous efforts to understand the time required to achieve Comprehensive Pain Management (CPM), the use of Patient- Reported Outcomes (PROs), and objective changes in pain scores, there is still much to learn [6,7]. A recent study sought to shed light on this crucial aspect of cancer care and to identify factors that influence the duration of treatment required.

The importance of comprehensive pain management

Pain management in cancer care is not merely about providing relief from physical suffering. It encompasses a broader goal - improving the overall well-being and quality of life for patients. Comprehensive pain management (CPM) takes into account not only the reduction of pain but also the patient's subjective experience, as reported through PROs. This approach acknowledges that pain is not just a physical sensation but also has psychological and emotional dimensions.

The study in question set out to evaluate the time required to achieve CPM when Specialized Palliative Care (SPC) is administered within an inpatient setting [8-11]. It involved collaboration between inpatient SPC consultation teams and palliative care units. The unique aspect of this research was its emphasis on using PROs as a primary measure of pain management success, alongside objective changes in pain scores.

Methodology

Researchers collected data from a diverse group of cancer patients receiving inpatient SPC interventions. The multidisciplinary nature of the SPC team was a key feature, as it included certified palliative scare physicians, advanced practice nurses, psycho-oncology physicians, pharmacists, medical social workers, rehabilitation specialists, dentists, and more. This holistic approach aimed to address pain from various angles, considering the physical, emotional, and social aspects.

Key findings

One of the central findings of the study was that continued research into the time required for achieving CPM with SPC, based on PROs and objective pain score changes, is crucial. The study revealed that achieving CPM is not solely a matter of pain reduction but also encompasses patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, a comprehensive approach to pain management is essential to improve the patient's overall well-being.

Predictors of refractory cancer pain: In addition to evaluating the time required to achieve CPM, the study also explored clinicodemographic factors that may predict refractory cancer pain. Identifying these factors is crucial for tailoring treatment plans and allocating resources effectively [12]. By understanding which patients are more likely to experience prolonged pain, healthcare providers can offer targeted interventions and support.

Implications for cancer care: This study underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to cancer pain management, utilizing PROs as an essential component of assessing treatment effectiveness. It also highlights the need for personalized care plans, as some patients may require longer durations of treatment due to specific clinicodemographic factors. In conclusion, cancer pain management goes beyond mere pain reduction; it encompasses the patient's holistic experience. The study discussed here provides valuable insights into the time required to achieve Comprehensive Pain Management within the context of inpatient Specialized Palliative Care. By recognizing the factors that influence treatment duration and focusing on patientreported outcomes, healthcare providers can enhance the quality of life for cancer patients, making their journey through cancer a bit more bearable.

Discussion

The study discussed in the article provides significant insights into cancer pain management, particularly the time required to achieve Comprehensive Pain Management (CPM) within an inpatient specialized palliative care (SPC) setting. The findings and implications of this research have important implications for healthcare professionals, patients, and policymakers involved in cancer care. In this discussion, we will delve deeper into the key findings and their broader implications [13].

Emphasis on comprehensive pain management (CPM)

One of the noteworthy aspects of this study is its emphasis on CPM, which goes beyond the conventional approach of merely reducing pain intensity. CPM recognizes that pain is a multidimensional experience, influenced by physical, psychological, and social factors. By incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) as a primary measure of success, this study acknowledges the importance of considering the patient's subjective experience in pain management. This shift in perspective aligns with the growing emphasis on patientcentered care, which aims to improve not only physical symptoms but also overall well-being.

Multidisciplinary approach: The study's approach to pain management is commendable for its multidisciplinary nature. The inclusion of a diverse team of healthcare professionals, including palliative care physicians, nurses, psycho-oncology physicians, pharmacists, social workers, and other specialists, underscores the complexity of cancer pain and the need for a holistic approach [14]. This collaborative effort ensures that various facets of pain, including physical, emotional, and social aspects, are addressed comprehensively.

Predictors of refractory cancer pain: Identifying clinicodemographic factors that predict refractory cancer pain is a crucial aspect of this research. By understanding swhich patients are more likely to experience prolonged pain and difficulty in achieving CPM, healthcare providers can tailor treatment plans to meet individual needs. These findings can inform decision-making, resource allocation, and interventions aimed at improving the quality of care for patients with specific risk factors.

Personalized care plans: The study's findings underscore the importance of personalized care plans in cancer pain management. No two patients are alike, and pain experiences can vary significantly. Therefore, healthcare providers should consider individual patient profiles, including clinicodemographic factors, when developing treatment strategies [15 ]. Personalization ensures that patients receive the right interventions at the right time, optimizing their chances of achieving CPM and enhancing their overall quality of life.

Implications for future research and practice: This study calls for continued research into cancer pain management, with a focus on PROs and objective changes in pain scores. It highlights the need for ongoing efforts to refine and expand our understanding of effective pain management strategies. Additionally, the multidisciplinary approach employed in this study should serve as a model for future palliative care interventions, emphasizing the importance of collaboration among various healthcare disciplines.

Patient-Centered care: Ultimately, the study's findings align with the broader shift toward patient-centered care in healthcare. Patientreported outcomes, alongside objective measures, empower patients to actively participate in their care, express their needs, and shape their treatment plans. By prioritizing the patient's perspective, healthcare providers can enhance patient satisfaction, improve symptom relief, and ultimately contribute to an improved quality of life for individuals facing cancer-related pain. In conclusion, the study discussed in this article brings attention to the multifaceted nature of cancer pain and the importance of a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to pain management. By integrating PROs, involving a multidisciplinary team, and identifying predictors of refractory pain, this research offers valuable insights that can inform future practices and policies aimed at improving the lives of individuals dealing with cancer-related pain.

Conclusion

The study on Comprehensive Pain Management (CPM) within the context of inpatient specialized palliative care (SPC) presented in this article provides essential insights into the intricate realm of cancer pain management. The findings emphasize the need for a holistic approach that extends beyond pain reduction, recognizing the multidimensional nature of pain experiences. This approach incorporates Patient- Reported Outcomes (PROs) as a vital measure of success and underscores the importance of considering the patient's subjective experience. The multidisciplinary nature of the study, involving a diverse team of healthcare professionals, highlights the complexity of cancer pain and the necessity of addressing various aspects, including the physical, emotional, and social dimensions. This collaborative effort ensures that pain management is approached comprehensively, ultimately enhancing the quality of care provided to patients.

Identifying clinicodemographic predictors of refractory cancer pain is a pivotal aspect of this research, offering healthcare providers valuable insights into tailoring treatment plans to individual needs. Personalized care plans, rooted in a deep understanding of patient profiles and risk factors, are essential for optimizing pain management and improving the overall quality of life for patients. Looking ahead, the study calls for ongoing research into cancer pain management, focusing on PROs and objective pain score changes. It advocates for a continued emphasis on patient-centered care, where patients actively participate in their treatment decisions and express their needs. This approach not only enhances patient satisfaction but also contributes to better symptom relief and overall well-being. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of evolving our approach to cancer pain management. By embracing a patient-centered, multidisciplinary, and comprehensive strategy, healthcare providers can make significant strides in improving the lives of individuals grappling with the challenges of cancer-related pain. As we move forward, these insights should continue to guide our efforts in enhancing the quality of care for cancer patients, offering them the support and relief they deserve on their journey.

Acknowledgement

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

Author declares no conflict of interest.

1. Stephan D, Grima M, Welsch M, Barthelmebs M, Vasmant D, et al. (1996) Fundam Clin Pharmacol 10:474-483.

, ,

2. Bhagat AA, Greene SJ, Vaduganathan M, Fonarow GC, Butler J (2019) JACC Heart Fail 7:1-12.

, ,

3. Turner JP, Shakib S, Singhal N, Hogan-Doran J, Prowse R, et al. (2014) J Am Geriatr Soc 62:1900-1905.

, ,

4. Ravindrarajah R, Hazra NC, Hamada S, Charlton J, Jackson SHD, et al. (2017) Circulation 135:2357-2368.

, ,

5. Satish S, Freeman DH, Ray L, Goodwin JS (2001) J Am Geriatr Soc 49:367-374.

, ,

6. Pisani L, Hill NS, Pacilli AMG, Polastri M, Nava S (2018) Chest 154:925-934.

, ,

7. Warraich HJ, Rogers JG, Dunlay SM, Hummel E, Mentz RJ (2018) J Palliat Med 21:1646-1650.

, ,

8. Scott IA, Hilmer SN, Reeve E, Potter K, Le Couteur D, et al. (2015) JAMA Intern Med 175:827-834.

, ,

9. Meyer-Junco L (2021) J Palliat Med 24:273-284.

, ,

10. Dewhurst F, Baker L, Andrew I, Todd A (2016) Int J Clin Pharm 38:1044-1047.

, ,

11. Harris D (2019) Br J Hosp Med 80: 184-189.

, ,

12. Tjia J, Kutner JS, Ritchie CS, Blatchford PJ, Bennett Kendrick RE, et al. (2017) J Palliat Med 20:1098-1103.

, ,

13. Morin L, Wastesson JW, Laroche ML, Fastbom J, Johnell K (2019) Palliat Med 33:1080-1090.

, ,

14. Todd A, Al-Khafaji J, Akhter N, Kasim A, Quibell R, et al. (2018) Br J Clin Pharmacol 84:2802-2810.

, ,

15. Schenker Y, Park SY, Jeong K, Pruskowski J, Kavalieratos D, et al. (2019) J Gen Intern Med 34:559-566.

, ,