Using outcome evaluations to assess interdisciplinary acute and chronic pain programs.
BACKGROUND
Outcome evaluations can be useful for reassuring patients that their time and effort are well spent on treatment and for providing staff with confidence in their treatment provision. Outcome evaluations were carried out in 1997 and 1999 to assess two initiatives for the treatment of patients within the Regina Health District (RHD), Saskatchewan, Canada-the Chronic Pain Team Evaluation and Management (CP TEAM) Service and the Acute Injury Management (AIM) Program. STUDY 1: The CP Team Service was an individualized interdisciplinary treatment program intended to serve patients with chronic pain. Of 47 eligible chronic pain patients, 36 participants completed treatment within 15 months, and 27 completed follow-up questionnaires on discharge; the comparison group was composed of the remaining 11 nontreated participants, 8 of whom responded to follow-up questionnaires. Only patients in the treatment group reported a decrease in pain and a decrease in interference in activities. Overall, satisfaction with treatment received was high. STUDY 2: The AIM Program was intended to aid employees with acute musculoskeletal injuries who could not perform regular job duties. Following injury, employees were contacted by an occupational health nurse and informed of the program. If the employee was interested, the AIM coordinator carried out an assessment and designed an individualized treatment package, including physical therapy, exercise therapy, and/or occupational therapy. Treatment was expected to continue until the employee returned to normal duties. Of 72 eligible employees, 43 employees participated and 29 opted not to participate-15 of whom agreed to participate as control participants for this study. Of the employees receiving AIM, 20 agreed to participate in this study. Of the employees not participating in AIM, 15 agreed to participate as control participants. Although pain and interference were greater among AIM participants before commencing treatment, by the end of treatment participants had improved more in level of pain severity and interference compared with controls. All participants reported improved job function over time. AIM participants, however, reported lower job function before treatment than control participants and similar job function after treatment- and indicated they were highly satisfied with the service they received.


CONCLUSIONS
Evaluations are not only used to assess program outcomes but are an important aspect of program validation and development. Data collection was incorporated, as much as possible, into routine treatment protocols and staff focused on obtaining essential information regarding patient outcomes rather than the whole scope of information.
Hadjistavropoulos
H D
HD
Clinical Research and Development Program, Regina Health District, 2180 23rd Avenue, Regina, SK, Canada S4S 0A5. hhadjistavropoulos@reginahealth.sk.ca
Clark
J
J
D000208:Acute Disease; D000328:Adult; D002391:Catchment Area, Health; D002908:Chronic Disease; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D010146:Pain / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000534:rehabilitation; D059408:Pain Management; D010348:Patient Care Team; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D012525:Saskatchewan; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires