edmonton classification system for cancer pain (ecs-cp) doreen oneschuk on behalf of the work...
TRANSCRIPT
Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP)
Doreen Oneschuk on behalf of the work completed by my fellow colleagues, notably Drs. R. Fainsinger and C.
NekolaichukCHPCA Banff Learning Institute
June 1, 2014
Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association Learning Institute
Presenter Name: Dr. Doreen Oneschuk
Relationships with commercial interests:No relationships with commercial interests
Faculty/Presenter Disclosure
3
Objectives
• To describe the features of the ECS-CP
• To illustrate how to apply the ECS-CP in clinical settings
• To highlight the benefits and challenges of using this tool in interdisciplinary settings
3
4
Advanced Cancer Pain
• Underdiagnosis and undertreatment1
• Complex pain syndromes often require more intense treatment and more time to achieve stable pain control
• No universally accepted system to predict complexity of cancer pain management
1 Cleeland, JAMA, 1998; 17:1877-82
How can we compare?
• TNM classification for cancer
• Allows a common language for clinicians & researchers
• No similar classification system for cancer pain
• Difficult to compare pain treatment results
Why would we need to classify cancer patients with pain?
• Accurate assessment guides management• Poor assessment handicaps management• Teach basic approach often• More opioids and adjuvants will not solve
everything • Wide variation in clinical and research
results in cancer pain medicine
Characteristics of a Cancer Pain Classification System
• Comprehensive
• Prognostic
• Simple to use (or busy clinicians will never use it )
8
Development of the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP)
ESSESS
rESSrESS
ECS-CPECS-CP
1989 - 1995
2000 - 2005
2005 - present
• Inter-rater reliability (Fainsinger et al, 2005)• Predictive validity (Fainsinger et al, 2005)• Construct validity (Nekolaichuk et al, 2005)• Pain intensity as predictor (Fainsinger et al, 2009)• Predictive validity in international sample (Fainsinger et al, 2010)
9
N - Mechanism of Pain
I - Incident Pain
P - Psychological Distress
A - Addictive Behavior
C - Cognitive Function
10
N - Mechanism of Pain
I - Incident Pain
P - Psychological Distress
A - Addictive Behavior
C - Cognitive Function
Ne Ii Pp Aa Co
Mechanism of Pain (N)
NoNcNeNx
– No pain– Nociceptive pain– Neuropathic pain– Insufficient information to classify
Incident Pain (I)
IoIiIx
– No incident pain– Incident pain present– Insufficient information to classify
Psychological Distress (P)
PoPpPx
– No psychological distress– Psychological distress present– Insufficient information to classify
DiseaseDisease
Pain Patient
Figure 2. ECS-CP Psychological Distress Indicators
Pain intensityOpioid responsivenessOpioid dosingUse of PRN opioidsPain descriptorsPathophysiologyPain history
Recent diagnosisOther symptomsFunctional statusCo-morbiditiesMental health historySubstance abuse hx
AgeSocial isolationSpiritual disconnectionCoping historyChemical copingFamily issuesPersonality
14
Addictive Behaviour (A)
AoAaAx
– No addictive behaviour– Addictive behaviour present– Insufficient information to classify
Addictive Behavior
Addiction is a primary, chronic, neurobiologic disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use compulsive use continued use despite harm craving
Plus Guidelines for use
16
Cognitive Function (C)
CoCiCuCx
– Normal cognition– Partial impairment– Total impairment– Insufficient information to classify
Interprofessional Approach to using ECS-CP clinically
• Communication tool
• Trigger for referrals– To palliative care inpatient units– Among disciplines
• Use in context of Interprofessional discussions
18
Communication Tool
• Allows team members to ‘speak a common language’
• Assists determining reasons for referral
• Aids in discussions in team meetings regarding approach to patient
• Assists at a Zone program level for program planning and resource allocation– Assists with patient triage and referral to appropriate site – Provides description of complexity of pain by site
19
Trigger for referrals
• Triggers for automatic referral to Interprofessional (IP) Team members– Pp – psychological distress present– Aa – addictive behavior present
• Potential referrals to IP team members– Px – psychological distress, insufficient info – Ax – addictive behavior, insufficient info
20
Interprofessional Discussions
• Allows team to determine which member(s) would be most appropriate to involve initially– Team conference– Psychosocial-spiritual team meetings– Informal discussions
21
22
Case Example: EP
Case example: EP
• 64 yo former rock-band and blues guitar player with prostate cancer, pain ‘10/10’.– widespread bone mets– recent IM nailing left femur– transferred to us post-op for pain management– Chronic pain syndrome post dx 23– On methadone for years– Hx multiple substance Use Disorders
23
EP initial assessment
• Mechanism of pain Ne– Mixed - nociceptive somatic pain left femur and hip
area post-op, possible neuropathic features too
• Incident component Ii– Increased with movement
• Psychological distress Px – insufficient information
• Addictive behaviour Ax– Insufficient information
• Cognition Co
24
Ne
Ii
Px
Ax
Co
EP becoming more clear
• Mechanism Nc• Incident component Ii• Psychological distress Pp• Addictive behaviour Aa• Cognition usually still Co, but during
episodes of delirium Ci (twice was Cu)
25
Nc
Ii
Pp
Aa
Co
Third PartyAssessmentsThird Party
Assessments
PatientReports
Assessment Measures
Fig 3. Psychological Distress Assessment Framework• ESAS-r (black, reverse)• # BTAs per 24 hours• Daily MEDD• Functional status (PPS)• CAGE• Coping Scale?• Distress measure?• Personality measure?
• Daily pain intensity• Pain ≥ 10/10• Increased pain at
night• “Pain all over”
• When you feel down or worried, does it affect your pain? (MD)
• PRN doses when lonely, upset or withdrawn (RN)
• PRN doses during/after a therapeutic session (ID team)
26
EP-progress
First month• Pain 8/10• Average 10 BTA/d• Methadone dose over
300mg/day • Bedbound• Drowsy most of the time,
when awake requesting BT Seroquel/methadone/ maxeran
9 months later• Pain 8/10• Average 4 BTA/d• Methadone 10mg po q8h ATC• Ambulating independently
around unit w walker, off unit in wheelchair
• Participating in Tile tales, playing CD of his music, interacting with Staff +family
• Trip to the Mountains x 3d
27
EP-Conclusion
• Discharged (which was a challenge) to Assisted living facility (‘gave up smoking.’)
• 6 months in community, care of dedicated Family Physician with expertise in chronic pain management, occasional Acute care admission
• Readmitted from home for functional decline, increasing leg pain, incontinence
• Imaging ruled out SCC/Cauda equina, most due to generalized weakness. Marked cachexia. Same dose of methadone as at discharge. Pt declined wk to week. Support ++ for pt and sister. Spiritual care involvement. Pt requested Priest be called. Family involved. Pt passed away peacefully (on IV abx though) 6 wks later.
28
How ECS-CP helped with management
• Strong incident component to pain and use of breakthrough meds prior to mobilizing, use of RT for bone mets, PT helped maximize mobility
• Recognition of patterns of addictive behaviour and titration to function rather than pain score, ability to gradually wean methadone down to 1/10 of original dose
• Recognition of psychological component with IP team involvement
• Fewer episodes of delirium with streamlining of meds
29
31
Research Hypothesis
Patients with – less problematic pain features (as classified by the ECS-CP)– lower pain intensity and depression scores – absence of a smoking history
will – require a shorter time to achieve stable pain control– require less complicated analgesic regimens – be more responsive to opioid therapy and – use lower opioid doses
than patients with more complex pain syndromes.
3232
Strengths• Brief• Clinically relevant • Provides a common language• Generalizable across diverse palliative care
settings• Supported by a series of psychometrically sound
validation studies
33
Potential Challenges• Adequate training & use of administration manual
• Interpretation of definitions• Stable pain control• Psychological distress in the context of pain• Addictive behavior excludes remote addictive history and
chronic tobacco use
• Challenges of assessing complex features such as incident pain and psychological distress
• Lack of psychometrically sound measures
Conclusion
• Identify patients with more complex pain syndromes, needing more intense interventions. Assists communication with interdisciplinary team.
• Future role in evaluating, treating and reporting research results in cancer pain assessment and management.
• Internationally recognized cancer pain classification system would enable clinicians to better manage cancer pain & allocate resources.