Background: The adoption of palliative care as an integral component of health care has led to the need for generalist level providers, especially important in serious illnesses such as cancer. Objectives: The goals of this National Cancer Institute-funded training program were to (1) identify the eight domains of quality palliative care applied to oncology practice, (2) demonstrate skills for oncology advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) in the domains of palliative care, and (3) develop goals for implementing the skills training in practice through process improvement, staff education, and clinical care. Design: The training program led by the End of Life Nursing Education Consortium (ELNEC) project included oncology APRNs in a three-day training course with one-year follow-up for ongoing support and to assess impact. Settings: Five training courses included 430 APRNs from 46 U.S states including both pediatric and adult oncology settings. The project included 25% minority participants. Measurement: Measures included participant goal implementation, course evaluations, and surveys to assess implementation and palliative care practices (precourse, 6 and 12 months postcourse). Results: The ELNEC oncology APRN training course resulted in changes in practice across domains, improved perceived effectiveness in clinical practice, and valuable insight regarding the challenges in generalist level palliative care implementation. Conclusion: The ELNEC oncology APRN course serves as a model for the palliative care field to advance generalist level practice. Future training efforts can build on this project to reach more oncology professionals and those in other areas of serious illness care.

Chronic cancer pain is a serious complication of malignancy or its treatment. Currently, no comprehensive, universally accepted cancer pain classification system exists. Clarity in classification of common cancer pain syndromes would improve clinical assessment and management. Moreover, an evidence-based taxonomy would enhance cancer pain research efforts by providing consistent diagnostic criteria, ensuring comparability across clinical trials. As part of a collaborative effort between the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) and the American Pain Society (APS), the ACTTION-APS Pain Taxonomy initiative worked to develop the characteristics of an optimal diagnostic system. After the establishment of these characteristics, a working group consisting of clinicians and clinical and basic scientists with expertise in cancer and cancer-related pain was convened to generate core diagnostic criteria for an illustrative sample of 3 chronic pain syndromes associated with cancer (ie, bone pain and pancreatic cancer pain as models of pain related to a tumor) or its treatment (ie, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). A systematic review and synthesis was conducted to provide evidence for the dimensions that comprise this cancer pain taxonomy. Future efforts will subject these diagnostic categories and criteria to systematic empirical evaluation of their feasibility, reliability, and validity and extension to other cancer-related pain syndromes.

Perspective

The ACTTION-APS chronic cancer pain taxonomy provides an evidence-based classification for 3 prevalent syndromes, namely malignant bone pain, pancreatic cancer pain, and chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. This taxonomy provides consistent diagnostic criteria, common features, comorbidities, consequences, and putative mechanisms for these potentially serious cancer pain conditions that can be extended and applied with other cancer-related pain syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians treating cancer-related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence-based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis. METHODS: The authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patients prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three-step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer-related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis. CONCLUSION: Study findings provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians managing cancer-related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Among palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

Background

Ineffective assessment and management of pain is a significant problem. A gap in prelicensure health science program pain content has been identified for the improvement of pain care in the United States.

Method

Through consensus processes, an expert panel of nurses, who participated in the interdisciplinary development of core competencies in pain management for prelicensure health professional education, developed recommendations to address the gap in nursing curricula.

Results

Challenges and incentives for implementation of pain competencies in nursing education are discussed, and specific recommendations for how to incorporate the competencies into entry-level nursing curricula are provided.

Conclusion

Embedding pain management core competencies into prelicensure nursing education is crucial to ensure that nurses have the essential knowledge and skills to effectively manage pain and to serve as a foundation on which clinical practice skills can be later honed. [J Nurs Educ. 2015;54(6):317-327.].

Introduction

Management of opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) among individuals with serious illness is an important yet understudied issue. Palliative care clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness, many of whom may live for months or years, describe a complex tension between weighing the benefits of opioids, which are considered a cornerstone of pain management in serious illness, and serious opioid-related harms like opioid misuse and OUD. And yet, little literature exists to inform the management of opioid misuse and OUDs among individuals with serious illness. Our objective is to provide evidence-based management guidance to clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who develop opioid misuse or OUD.

Methods and analysis

We chose a modified Delphi approach, which is appropriate when empirical evidence is lacking and expert input must be used to shape clinical guidance. We sought to recruit 60 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, addiction or both to participate in this study. We created seven patient cases that capture important management challenges in individuals with serious illness prescribed opioid therapy. We used ExpertLens, an online platform for conducting modified Delphi panels. Participants completed three rounds of data collection. In round 1, they rated and commented on the appropriateness of management choices for cases. In round 2, participants reviewed and discussed their own and other participants' round 1 numerical responses and comments. In round 3 (currently ongoing), participants again reviewed rounds 1 and 2, and are allowed to change their final numerical responses. We used ExpertLens to automatically identify whether there is consensus, or disagreement, among responses in panels. Only round 3 responses will be used to assess final consensus and disagreement.

Ethics and dissemination

This project received ethical approval from the University of Pittsburgh's Institutional Review Board (study 19110301) and the RAND Institutional Research Board (study 2020-0142). Guidance from this work will be disseminated through national stakeholder networks to gain buy-in and endorsement. This study will also form the basis of an implementation toolkit for clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who are at risk of opioid misuse or OUD.

Pain is a common symptom associated with cancer and its treatment. Pain management is an important aspect of oncologic care, and unrelieved pain significantly comprises overall quality of life. These NCCN Guidelines list the principles of management and acknowledge the range of complex decisions faced in the management oncologic pain. In addition to pain assessment techniques, these guidelines provide principles of use, dosing, management of adverse effects, and safe handling procedures of pharmacologic therapies and discuss a multidisciplinary approach for the management of cancer pain.

Objective

The objective of this project was to develop core competencies in pain assessment and management for prelicensure health professional education. Such core pain competencies common to all prelicensure health professionals have not been previously reported.

Methods

An interprofessional executive committee led a consensus-building process to develop the core competencies. An in-depth literature review was conducted followed by engagement of an interprofessional Competency Advisory Committee to critique competencies through an iterative process. A 2-day summit was held so that consensus could be reached.

Results

The consensus-derived competencies were categorized within four domains: multidimensional nature of pain, pain assessment and measurement, management of pain, and context of pain management. These domains address the fundamental concepts and complexity of pain; how pain is observed and assessed; collaborative approaches to treatment options; and application of competencies across the life span in the context of various settings, populations, and care team models. A set of values and guiding principles are embedded within each domain.

Conclusions

These competencies can serve as a foundation for developing, defining, and revising curricula and as a resource for the creation of learning activities across health professions designed to advance care that effectively responds to pain.