Pain management
Download
1 / 49

Pain Management - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 193 Views
  • Updated On :

Pain Management. Barriers to pain management Goals of pain Management WHO ladder Dosing and titration Routes of admin. “Breakthrough pain” Opiophobia Equianalgesic ratios Opioid substitution Side effects Organ failure. Overview.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Pain Management' - paul2


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Overview l.jpg

Barriers to pain management

Goals of pain Management

WHO ladder

Dosing and titration

Routes of admin.

“Breakthrough pain”

Opiophobia

Equianalgesic ratios

Opioid substitution

Side effects

Organ failure

Overview


Clinician related barriers to pain assessment l.jpg
Clinician-Related Barriers to Pain Assessment

  • Lack of formal training in pain management

  • Insufficient knowledge

  • Lack of pain-assessment skills

  • Rigidity or timidity in prescribing practices

  • Fear of regulatory oversight

    Portenoy RK Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Pain in Oncologic and AIDS Patients 2001 Handbooks in Heathcare


Patient related barriers to pain assessment l.jpg
Patient-Related Barriers to Pain Assessment

  • Reluctance to report pain (eg fear of distracting doctors from cure)

  • Reluctance to take opioid drugs

  • Poor adherence

    Portenoy RK 2001


System related barriers to pain assessment l.jpg
System-Related Barriers to Pain Assessment

  • Low priority given to symptom control

  • (Availability of opioid analgesics)

  • Inaccessibility/low profile of specialised care

  • Cost of outpatient pain medication

    Portenoy RK 2001


Pain assessment goals l.jpg
Pain Assessment: Goals to Pain Assessment

  • Assess the pain context

  • Characterize the pain

  • Identify pain syndrome

  • Diagnose the cause

  • Evaluate physical and psychosocial co-morbidity

  • Assess degree and nature of disability

  • Develop a therapeutic strategy

    Portenoy RK 2001


The context l.jpg
The Context to Pain Assessment

Symptoms of debility

Non-cancer pathology

Side effects of therapy

Cancer

Loss of social position

Bureaucratic bungling

Loss of job prestige

and income

SOMATIC SOURCE

Friends not visiting

Loss of role in family

TOTAL

PAIN

Delays in diagnosis

Chronic fatigue

and insomnia

DEPRESSION

ANGER

Unavailable doctors

Sense of helplessness

Irritability

ANXIETY

Disfigurement

Therapeutic failure

Fear of pain

Fear of hospital

or nursing home

Family finances

Worry about family

Loss of choices

Fear of death

Uncertainty about future

Spiritual (existential) unrest


Pain assessment goals8 l.jpg
Pain Assessment: Goals to Pain Assessment

Diagnose the cause


Pathophysiology l.jpg

Nociceptive pain to Pain Assessment

Neuropathic pain

Commensurate with identifiable tissue damage

May be abnormal, unfamiliar pain, probably caused by dysfunction in PNS or CNS

Pathophysiology


Nociceptive pain l.jpg
Nociceptive Pain to Pain Assessment

  • Related to ongoing activation of primary afferent neurons in response to noxious stimuli

  • Pain is consistent with the degree of tissue injury

  • Subtypes

    • Somatic: well localized, described as sharp, aching, throbbing

    • Visceral: more diffuse, described as gnawing or cramping

      Portenoy RK 2001


Neuropathic pain l.jpg
Neuropathic Pain to Pain Assessment

  • Pain believed to be sustained by aberrant somatosensory processing in the peripheral or central nervous system


Pain history l.jpg
Pain history to Pain Assessment

Pain is what the patient says hurts


Pain history phenomenology l.jpg
Pain history to Pain Assessment phenomenology

  • Temporal

    • Acute / recurrent / persistent

    • onset and duration

    • daily course

  • Intensity: ask the patient to rate

    • Average/worst / least / current

  • Topography: determine if pain is

    • Focal / multifocal / referred / deep

  • Quality: ask if it is

    • Numb/aching/stabbing/shooting/burning

  • Exacerbating relieving factors,


  • Pain history continued l.jpg
    Pain history continued to Pain Assessment

    • Medication

    • Side effects

    • Organ function

    • Fears

    • Psychosocial context

    • World view/meaning

    • Narrative

    • Measurement


    Visual analogue scale l.jpg
    Visual Analogue Scale to Pain Assessment

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    Worst

    pain

    imaginable

    No pain

    Moderate

    pain


    Examination diagnose the cause l.jpg
    Examination to Pain Assessment (Diagnose the cause)

    • Appearance

    • Location

    • Tenderness

    • Weakness

    • Paraesthesia


    Investigation if it will aid management l.jpg
    Investigation to Pain Assessment if it will aid management.

    • Only if potential benefit to patient

    • May help identify management option,

      XRAY (bone or joint pathology/ bowel obstruction) ,Bone Scan, CT, MRI


    Investigation l.jpg
    Investigation to Pain Assessment

    • Always in context benefit v burden

    • No mater how ‘simple’ the test, it may be abandoned as futile, if burden (as perceived by patient) outweighs potential benefit to patient.

    • Equally investigation may significantly guide appropriate treatment eg fractured neck of femur, best pain management is surgical management.


    Approach to pain management l.jpg
    Approach to Pain Management to Pain Assessment

    • Raise the patients pain threshold

      • Peripherally acting drugs eg paracetamol,

      • Identify and engage a patient’s psycho/social/spiritual resources

  • Decrease the noxious stimulus

    • If appropriate disease modifying treatments eg surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy.

    • Treat other cause eg infection

  • Use appropriately titrated strong opioid (centrally acting).

  • Diagnose, appropriately manage neuropathic pain, consider specialist referral.

    Approaching cancer pain relief European Journal of Pain, Volume 5, Supplement 1, December 2001, Pages 5-14 J. Norelle Lickis


  • Approach to pain management20 l.jpg
    Approach to Pain Management to Pain Assessment

    • Address psychosocial issues

      • Anxiety

      • Depression

      • Spiritual distress

      • Family conflict

      • Financial issues


    Principles of analgesic use l.jpg
    Principles of analgesic use to Pain Assessment

    Three classes

    • Nonopioid (paracetamol and NSAIDs),

    • Opioid (weak and strong) and

    • Adjuvant (e.g.corticosteroids, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, muscle relaxants).


    Who method for relief of cancer pain l.jpg

    'By the mouth’ i.e. oral to Pain Assessment

    'By the clock’

    i.e. regular

    'By the ladder' (next slide)

    Individualise treatment

    Pay attention to detail

    WHO Method for Relief of Cancer Pain:


    Who ladder l.jpg
    WHO ladder to Pain Assessment

    Strong opioid

    + non opioid

    +/- adjuvant

    Weak opioid

    + non opioid

    +/- adjuvant

    Step 3

    Non opioids +/- adjuvant

    Step 2

    Step 1

    World Health Organization (1986) Cancer Pain Relief. World HealthOrganization, Geneva.


    Broad spectrum analgesia l.jpg
    'Broad-spectrum analgesia' to Pain Assessment

    • The concept behind the analgesic ladder is

      • drugs from each of the three classes of analgesic are used appropriately either singly or in combination, to maximise their impact.


    Step 1 non opioid l.jpg
    Step 1. Non-opioid to Pain Assessment

    • Use regular non-opioid as basis for analgesic regimen (WHO step 1).

    • Continue regular non-opioid and add in other agents (WHO steps 2 and 3) regular and prn.

    • Paracetamol improves pain and well being in people already receiving a strong opioid regimen. Vardy J et al 2004 J Clin Oncol 22:3389-3394

    • Hepatic toxicity is rare in doses less than 8g/d even in patients with chronic liver disease.Benson GD: Evaluation of the safety of acetaminophen in chronic liver disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther 33:95-101, 1983


    Who step 2 opioid analgesia l.jpg
    WHO Step 2. Opioid analgesia to Pain Assessment

    • Opioid therapy is first line approach for moderate or severe cancer pain

    • Opioid therapy can relieve > 75% of cancer related pain

      WHO Cancer Pain Relief 2nd ed a Guide to Opioid Availability. Geneva WHO 1996.


    Opioid pharmacology l.jpg
    Opioid pharmacology to Pain Assessment

    • Opioids mimic actions of endogenous opioid compounds (endorphins)

    • Mu, kappa, delta

    • Multiple subtypes

    • Spinal cord, brain stem and peripheral tissue

      Portenoy RK 2001.


    Dosing l.jpg
    Dosing to Pain Assessment

    • Take into account

      • Is patient ‘naïve’ to opioids

      • pain aetiology

      • current 24hr dose

      • Absorption (decreased in constipated pt)

      • organ function

      • age

      • Co-morbidity

      • side effect v benefit


    Titration l.jpg
    Titration to Pain Assessment

    • Titrate with immediate release medication

    • Ensure regular dose plus appropriate breakthrough available

    • Note equianalgesic ratios

    • Once stable convert to:

      • Slow release

      • Trans-dermal if indicated


    Routes of administration l.jpg
    Routes of administration to Pain Assessment

    • Oral where possible

    • Slow release once requirement stable

    • Subcutaneous if parenteral indicated (poor swallowing, vomiting or constipation which may decrease absorption)

    • No indication for intramuscular

    • Intravenous occasionally e.g PCA (patient controlled analgesia)

    • Consider trans-mucosal (expensive)

    • Transdermal (only once stable)


    Breakthrough pain l.jpg
    Breakthrough pain to Pain Assessment

    • A transient, symptomatic exacerbation of pain

    • Exacerbations

    • Pain that can occur as a symptomatic overlay to baseline persistent pain.

    • Also described as "episodic," "incidental," and "transient" pain.


    Breakthrough pain a transient exacerbation of pain l.jpg
    Breakthrough pain to Pain Assessment a transient exacerbation of pain

    • Superimposes otherwise stable baseline pain.

    • Describes worsening pain intensity as well as the transient nature of BTP symptoms.


    Breakthrough pain a transient exacerbation of pain34 l.jpg
    Breakthrough pain to Pain Assessment a transient exacerbation of pain

    • For this definition to apply, baseline persistent pain should be stable.

    • Unstable baseline pain suggests the possibility that the baseline pain may not be accurately assessed or managed.

    • Widely changing baseline levels of pain may indicate:

      • unrecognized breakthrough phenomena or

      • Inadequately treatment of persistent pain

        • analgesics lacking enough potency or

        • duration of effect (dose).


    Breakthrough pain35 l.jpg
    Breakthrough pain to Pain Assessment

    • Subtypes of Breakthrough Pain (BTP)

    • Bennet D, Burton AW, Fishman S, et al. Consensus panel recommendations for the assessment and management of breakthrough pain: part 1. Treatment. Pharmacol Ther. 2005;30:296-301.

    • http://www.medscape.com/viewprogram/4270


    Anticipatory doses l.jpg
    Anticipatory doses to Pain Assessment

    • Given prophylactively prior to expected painful activity eg mobilising, dressing changes or other procedure.

    • Timed to coincide with the peak plasma concentration of particular analgesic eg 20mins Endone or oral morphine.


    Dose adjustment l.jpg
    Dose adjustment to Pain Assessment

    • If the patient's pain improves, e.g. as a result of radiotherapy or a nerve block, dose reduction may be required to prevent side effects e.g. sedation.

      • Hanks GW, Twycross RG, Lloyd JW. Unexpected complication of successful nerve block. Morphine induced respiration precipitated by removal of severe pain. Anaesthesia 1981; 36;37-39


    Opiophobia myths to be dispelled l.jpg
    Opiophobia to Pain Assessment -myths to be dispelled

    • Nearly all patients and many clinicians fear that morphine

      • Is addictive even if used correctly for pain

      • Should be reserved for patients who are dying because

        • It may hasten death

        • Tolerance will limit duration of effective analgesia

      • Side effects are worse than pain

    • There is evidence to support the consensus that none of these are true


    Tolerance to strong opioids l.jpg
    Tolerance to strong opioids to Pain Assessment

    • Patients fear tolerance (“I don’t want morphine until I really need it!”)

    • Disease progression is the major factor in opioid dose increases in cancer pain management.

    • Increase in pain will usually respond to up titration of opioid dose.

    • Patients who have pain and receive opioid analgesia. live longer than those who don’t receive opioids

      • Collins E, Poulain P Gauvin-Piquard A et al Pain 1981; Suppl 1:S39.

      • A Thorns; N Sykes The Lancet; Jul 29, 2000; 356, 9227; pg. 398


    Tolerance to strong opioids40 l.jpg
    Tolerance to strong opioids. to Pain Assessment

    • In practice rarely a problem.

    • Patients fear of developing psychological dependence (addiction) is unfounded

    • Should not limit the use of strong opioids for cancer pain.

    • Caution in this respect should be reserved for patients with a present or past history of substance abuse.

    • Patients with significant cancer pain and a history of drug use often require a steep titration phase for opioid therapy. Seek specialist help.

    Twycross R, Wilcox A et al Palliative Care Formulary 2002


    Opioid substitution l.jpg
    Opioid Substitution to Pain Assessment

    • In patients who have intolerable adverse effects with morphine, it may be necessary to substitute an alternative strong opioid.

    • If increase in dose is met by unacceptable side effects with no improvement in pain.

    De Stouts, Bruera E, Suarez-Almazor AAM: Opioid rotation for toxicity reduction in terminal cancer ptients. J Pain and Symptom Manage 1995; 10:378-384


    Respiratory depression l.jpg
    Respiratory Depression to Pain Assessment

    • Pain is a physiological antagonist to the central depressant effects of morphine

    • Chronic dosing with appropriately titrated strong opioids do not cause clinically important respiratory depression in cancer patients in pain when used correctly.

    • Caution in sleep apnoea (CAL generally safe if correct titration)

    Twycross R, Wilcox A et al Palliative Care Formulary 2002


    Respiratory depression43 l.jpg
    Respiratory Depression to Pain Assessment

    Less likely when patients:

    • are not opioid naive

    • take medication by mouth (slower absorption, lower peak concentration)

    • titration of the dose upwards occurs step by step (less likelihood of an excessive dose being given).


    Opioid side effects l.jpg
    Opioid side effects to Pain Assessment

    • Constipation

      • Education and prophylaxis for almost all patients e.g. Movicol, Coloxyl with Senna

      • Avoid bulking agents

    • Nausea

      • Consider prophylaxis if pt nervous or history of nausea

    • Neurotoxicity

      • Mild: subjective experience of altered mental state,

      • moderate: drowsiness,

      • severe: delirium, myoclonus, seizures (inappropriate titration or organ failure)


    Organ failure l.jpg
    Organ Failure to Pain Assessment

    • Renal failure significant in terms of increased elimination half life and accumulation of toxic metabolites

      • Dose adjustment

      • Dosing interval adjustment

    • Choice of analgesic - seek specialist advice


    Organ failure46 l.jpg
    Organ Failure to Pain Assessment

    • Liver failure in practice largely not significant

    • Hepatic encephalopathy, as with any cause of delirium may increase neurotoxic side effects.


    Summary 1 l.jpg
    Summary 1 to Pain Assessment

    • 75% of cancer pain can be controlled with simple measures eg appropriately titrated morphine and regular paracetamol

    • Don’t forget constipation prophylaxis

    • Dose adjust in renal failure

    • Have a high index of suspicion for co-morbid delirium (eg infection, hypercalcaemia) if confusion develops

    • Avoid the traps of opiophobia


    Summary 2 l.jpg
    Summary 2 to Pain Assessment

    • Reduce the noxious stimulus

      • Diagnose the cause

      • Treat where possible and appropriate

      • Use regular non-opioid eg paracetamol

  • Raise the patient’s pain threshold

    • Address bio/psycho/social/spiritual patient needs and resources

  • Opioids: first line treatment for moderate to severe Ca pain.

    • Use appropriate regular + prn / route / choice of drug / care in renal failure.

    • Address myths and opio-phobia

  • Know how to diagnose and manage neuropathic pain

    • Patient descriptors numb/shooting/burning/toothache like

  • Consult specialist as required

  • Don’t neglect the patients psychosocial issues

  • Vardy J et al 2004 J Clin Oncol 22:3389-3394


    References l.jpg
    References to Pain Assessment

    • Hanks GW, et al. Morphine and alternative opioids in cancer pain: the EAPC recommendations BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER 84 (5): 587-593 MAR 2 2001

    • Lickiss JN. Approaching cancer pain relief. Eur J Pain 2001; 5 (Suppl A): 514

    • Glare, P et al Ongoing controversies in the pharmacological management of cancer pain. INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL 34 (1-2), 45-49.

    • Thorns A, Sykes N. Opioid use in the last week of life and implications for end-of-life decision-making. LANCET. 2000 Jul 29;356(9227):398-9.

    • Indelicato RA, Portenoy RK, : Opioid rotation in the management of refractory cancer pain. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY 20 (1): 348-352 JAN 1 2002


    ad