Süleyman DENİZ, Abdülkadir ATIM, Tarık PURTULOĞLU, Ercan KURT

Results of the assessment of the council of multidisciplinary pain

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, hastanemizde teşkil edilen multidisipliner ağrı konseyinin hasta proflini, tedavi yaklaşımlarını, tedavi sonuçlarını ve hasta memnuniyeti düzeylerini ortaya koyarak gerekliliğini vurgulamaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Hastaların yaşı, cinsiyeti, konseyde kaç kez değerlendirildiği, tanısı ve hastalara önerilen tedaviler kayıtlar üzeri- nden retrospektif olarak tespit edildi. Hastaların >1 yıl süredeki durumları, tedavilerden fayda görüp görmedikleri ve memnuniyet düzeyleri telefonla sorgulandı. Bulgular: Hastalara kronik bel ağrısı (%35) ve vertebral tümör ya da metastazı (%10) en sık konulan tanılardı. Hastaların %74ü omurga kökenli sebeplerle değerlendirilmişti. Hastaların %23ü çok, %27si orta ve %35i az fayda görmüş olup, faydalılık %85 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Hasta memnuniyeti %24 çok, %23 orta, %32 az olarak bulunmuş olup, memnuniyet %79 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç: Farklı disiplinlere ait hekimlerin hep birlikte karmaşık hastaları değerlendirmesi tanı ve tedavi açısından tek başlarına değerlendirmelerinden iyi sonuçlanmaktadır. Ayrıca, multidisipliner yaklaşımla hastalara farklı tedavi seçeneklerinin sunulması ve uygulanması tedavi etkinliği ve hasta memnuniyeti üzerine olumlu etki yapmıştır. Standart tedavi protokolleri yerine kişiye özel tedavi protokollerinin multidisipliner olarak belirlenmesinin faydalı olacağını düşünmekteyiz.

Multidisipliner ağrı konseyi değerlendirme sonuçları

Objectives: Te aim of this study was to emphasize the necessity of multidisciplinary pain council by demonstrating the patient profle, treatment approaches, outcomes, and patient satisfaction levels obtained from our council. Methods: In this study, the age, gender, number of council evaluations, diagnoses and recommended therapies of patients were determined retrospectively. Te status of the patients >1 year, outcomes of the therapies, and satisfaction levels of the patients were questioned on the phone. Results: Te patients were most commonly diagnosed as chronic low back pain (35%) and vertebral tumor or metastasis (10%). 74 % of the patients were evaluated because of vertebral causes. 23% of the patients had good, 27% had moderate and 35% had poor beneft; benefcence was calculated as 85%. Patient satisfaction was found as 24%, 23%, and 32%, respectively; satisfaction was calculated as 79%. Conclusion: Evaluation of complex patients by physicians from diferent disciplines has better diagnostic and treatment outcomes. In addition, multidisciplinary approach ofer and perform diferent therapy options and this has positive efects on treatment efciency and patient satisfaction. We are in the opinion that instead of standard treatment protocols, determining individualized multidisciplinary treatment protocols should be useful.

PDF

___

1. M oradi B, Hagmann S, Zahlten-Hinguranage A, Caldeira F, Putz C, Rosshirt N, et al. Efcacy of multidisciplinary treat- ment for patients with chronic low back pain: a prospec- tive clinical study in 395 patients. J Clin Rheumatol 2012;18 (2):76-82.
2. Sarzi-Puttini P, Atzeni F, Salaf F, Cazzola M, Benucci M, Mease PJ. Multidisciplinary approach to fbromyalgia: what is the teaching? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2011;25(2):311-9.
3. Van der Hulst M, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM, Ijzerman MJ. A sys - tematic review of sociodemographic, physical, and psycho- logical predictors of multidisciplinary rehabilitation-or, back school treatment outcome in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005;30(7):813-25.
4. Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, van Tulder M, Roine R, Jauhiain - en M, Hurri H, et al. Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial reha- bilitation for subacute low back pain in working-age adults: a systematic review within the framework of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001;26(3):262-9.
5. Guzmán J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Irvin E, health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item se- lection. Med Care 1992;30(6):473-83.
6. Cairns D, Mooney V, Crane P. Spinal pain rehabilitation: inpa - tient and outpatient treatment results and development of predictors for outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1984;9(1):91- 5.
7. Guzmán J, Esmail R, Karjalainen K, Malmivaara A, Irvin E, Bombardier C. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: systematic review. BMJ 2001;322(7301):1511- 6.
8. Jensen IB, Bergström G, Ljungquist T, Bodin L. A 3-year fol - low-up of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme for back and neck pain. Pain 2005;115(3):273-83.
9. Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG. Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with functional restoration. Spine J 2008;8(1):65-9.
10. P atrick LE, Altmaier EM, Found EM. Long-term outcomes in multidisciplinary treatment of chronic low back pain: results of a 13-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29(8):850- 5.
11. Badley EM, Rasooly I, Webster GK. Relative importance of musculoskeletal disorders as a cause of chronic health problems, disability, and health care utilization: fnd- ings from the 1990 Ontario Health Survey. J Rheumatol 1994;21(3):505-14.
12. Lautenschläger J, Mau W, Kohlmann T, Raspe HH, Struve F, Brückle W, Zeidler H. Comparative evaluation of a German version of the Health Assessment Questionnaire and the Hannover Functional Capacity Questionnaire. Z Rheumatol 1997;56(3):144-55.
13. Chibnall JT, Tait RC. The Pain Disability Index: factor structure and normative data. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75(10):1082-6.
14. Tait RC, Chibnall JT, Krause S. The Pain Disability Index: psy chometric properties. Pain 1990;40(2):171-82.
15. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item se- lection. Med Care 1992;30(6):473-83.
16. Radlof LS, Rae DS. Susceptibility and precipitating factors in depression: sex diferences and similarities. J Abnorm Psy- chol 1979;88(2):174-81.
17. Buchner M, Neubauer E, Zahlten-Hinguranage A, Schilten - wolf M. Age as a predicting factor in the therapy outcome of multidisciplinary treatment of patients with chronic low back pain--a prospective longitudinal clinical study in 405 patients. Clin Rheumatol 2007;26(3):385-92.
18. S cascighini L, Toma V, Dober-Spielmann S, Sprott H. Multi- disciplinary treatment for chronic pain: a systematic review of interventions and outcomes. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47(5):670-8.
19. Smeets RJ, Vlaeyen JW, Hidding A, Kester AD, van der Heijden GJ, Knottnerus JA. Chronic low back pain: physical training, graded activity with problem solving training, or both? The one-year post-treatment results of a randomized controlled trial. Pain 2008;134(3):263-76.
20. M oradi B, Zahlten-Hinguranage A, Barié A, Caldeira F, Schnatzer P, Schiltenwolf M, et al. The impact of pain spread on the outcome of multidisciplinary therapy in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain - a prospective clinical study in 389 patients. Eur J Pain 2010;14(8):799-805.
21. Jensen IB, Busch H, Bodin L, Hagberg J, Nygren A, Bergström G. Cost efectiveness of two rehabilitation programmes for neck and back pain patients: a seven year follow-up. Pain 2009;142(3):202-8.
22. F lor H, Fydrich T, Turk DC. Efcacy of multidisciplinary pain treatment centers: a meta-analytic review. Pain 1992;49(2):221-30.
23. Demoulin C, Grosdent S, Capron L, Tomasella M, Somville PR, Crielaard JM, et al. Efectiveness of a semi-intensive multidis- ciplinary outpatient rehabilitation program in chronic low back pain. Joint Bone Spine 2010;77(1):58-63.
24. Keller A, Hayden J, Bombardier C, van Tulder M. Efect sizes of non-surgical treatments of non-specifc low-back pain. Eur Spine J 2007;16(11):1776-88.