The treatment of acute pain remains unsatisfactory despite advances in pain research and the publication of numerous guidelines. The aim of this study was to survey postoperative and emergency room acute pain treatment in Switzerland, particularly regarding compliance with practice guidelines on therapeutic responsibility, treatment algorithms, pain documentation, quality control and education.A representative sample of anaesthesiologists and surgeons (general and orthopaedic) was selected from all Swiss hospitals with regular surgical activity and sent a 256 point questionnaire on acute pain management. Five hundred and seventy five doctors were contacted in 98 hospitals, 44% of doctors (covering 89% of hospitals) returned fully completed questionnaires. Half the respondents work in a hospital with an acute pain service. For postoperative pain management, only 10% of prescription is by algorithm, less than a third of respondents regularly determine pain scores, only 15% perform any statistical analysis of pain management, less than one third regularly meet to discuss management problems, and half claim not to have received-or be receiving-formal (i.e. structured/accredited) pain education. The situation is even less satisfactory for emergency room analgesia. Respondents accept the contribution of postoperative and emergency room analgesia to reduced costs and improved medical outcomes. Asked to highlight their major concerns in acute pain management, lack of education and inadequate organisation are listed in first and second positions. This survey suggests that compliance with published practice guidelines for acute pain management can be improved, and highlights the need for continuing organisational and educational development in acute analgesia, particularly for the emergency room.

No abstract

Chronic pain management by Swiss specialist physicians with the primary hypothesis that pain clinic practitioners conform better to good practice (interdisciplinarity, diagnostic/therapeutic routines, quality control, education) than other specialists treating chronic pain was surveyed. Management of all types of chronic pain by pain clinic practitioners and rheumatologists, oncologists or neurologists was compared via a mailed questionnaire survey (n=125/group). Two hundred and twenty-nine (46%) of 500 mailed questionnaires were returned with similar group return rates. Eighty-six percent of responders find chronic pain therapy very difficult/difficult; they estimate only 45% of these patients achieve good outcomes. Twenty-three per cent of responders belong to an interdisciplinary pain centre, but 72% of chronic pain patients are treated by responders alone. Fifty-nine percent never/only occasionally use therapeutic algorithms, 38% use formal pain diagnostic procedures, 20% have a pain quality control programme. Fifty-one percent lack past pain education, 37% do not attend continuing pain education, 69% agree that pain education is their greatest need. Pain clinic practitioners are more interdisciplinary and use more pain diagnostics than other specialists. They are matched by oncologists in education and success in therapeutic escalation, and bettered by them in algorithm use. Pain clinic practitioners and oncologists bring particular-differing-skills to chronic pain management compared to rheumatologists and neurologists. Chronic pain management diversity may result from differences in malignant and benign pain, and its generally being provided by the speciality treating the underlying cause. This survey identifies targets for improvement in areas fundamental to good chronic pain practice: interdisciplinarity, diagnostic/therapeutic tools, quality management and education.

No abstract

No abstract