[Process control in acute pain management. An analysis of the degree of organization of applied standard protocols].

backgroundThe aim of this study was to analyze the degree of organization of different standard protocols for acute pain management, as well as the derivation and definition of typical but structurally different models.

methodsA total of 85 hospitals provided their written standardized protocols for analysis. Protocols for defined target processes from 76 hospitals and another protocol used by more than one hospital were included into the analysis. The suggested courses of action were theoretically simulated to identify and characterize process types in a multistage evaluation process.

resultsThe analysis included 148 standards. Four differentiated process types were defined ("standardized order", "analgesic ladder", "algorithm", "therapy path"), each with an increasing level of organization. These four types had the following distribution: 27 % (n = 40) "standardized order", 47 % (n = 70) "analgesic ladder", 22 % (n = 33) "algorithm", 4 % (n = 5) "therapy path". Models with a higher degree of organization included more control elements, such as action and intervention triggers or safety and supervisory elements, and were also associated with a formally better access to medication. For models with a lower degree of organization, immediate courses of action were more dependent on individual decisions. Although not quantifiable, this was particularly evident when simulating downstream courses of action. Interfaces between areas of hospital activity and a cross-departmental-boundary validity were only considered in a fraction of the protocols. Concepts from clinics with a certificate in (acute) pain management were more strongly process-oriented. For children, there were proportionately more simple concepts with a lower degree of organization and less controlling elements.

conclusionThis is the first analysis of a large sample of standardized protocols for acute pain management focusing on the degree of organization and the possible influence on courses of action. The analysis shows how different the structures and presumably the practical objectives of the various concepts are. The analyzed protocols with a lower degree of organization can manage only the assignment of a particular medication to the corresponding patient group, with a presumably high requirement for considerable implicit knowledge of the responsible employees. Accordingly, a requirement for such protocols should be that they not only describe the preferred standard therapy, but also define the interactions between the staff members involved. It remains questionable whether a protocol with a low level of organization and a comparably high requirement for implicit knowledge and individual action--also from nonmedical personnel--is able to ensure efficient pain therapy, particularly in view changing staff and dynamic responses to changing pain situations.