scholarly journals Assessment of Infection Control Practices for Interventional Techniques: A Best Evidence Synthesis of Safe Injection Practices and Use of Single-Dose Medication Vials

2012 ◽  
Vol 5;15 (5;9) ◽  
pp. E573-E614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: It is universally accepted that transmission of bloodborne pathogens during health care procedures continues to occur because of the use of unsafe and improper injection, infusion, and medication administration practices by health care professionals in various clinical settings. This resulted in development of multiple guidelines based on case reports; however, these case reports are confounded by multiple factors without causal relationship to a single factor. Even then, singledose vials used for multiple patients have been singled out and became the focus of infection control policies resulting in inordinate expenses for practices without improving patient safety. The cost of implementation of single dose vial policy in Interventional Pain Management for drugs alone may cost $750 million, whereas with single use radional gloves may exceed $1 billion per year. Study Design: Best evidence synthesis. Objective: To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on infection control practices for interventional techniques, including safe injection and medication vial utilization. Methods: The available literature on infection control practices was reviewed. Due to the nature of the studies involved, with the majority being case reports, and a few prospective evaluations, quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria were not applied. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through June 2012, literature from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was correlating infection to a breach of standards in infection control practices. The secondary objective was to assess the contribution of single-dose vials independently for infection. Results: A total of 60 reports met inclusion criteria, with 16 reports related to pain management and other procedures, of which 9 reports were attributed to issues related to interventional techniques. Based on an estimated 37 infections occurring during 200 million interventional techniques from 1997 through 2011, the rate of infection is speculated to be one infection for every 5 million interventional pain management procedures. However, if 10 times more infections are estimated, the infection rate appears to be one infection for every 500,000 interventional pain management procedures. The evidence is good for infection related to a breach of infection control practices. There is good evidence that contamination of multi-dose or single-dose vials can contribute to infection. There was poor evidence that the use of single-dose vials on multiple patients with appropriate infection control practices cause infection in interventional pain management. Limitations: The limitations of this comprehensive best evidence synthesis include the paucity of literature and dependence of governmental agencies on their literature without applying Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria for guideline synthesis

2011 ◽  
Vol 5;14 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 434-434
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Recently, multiple regulations and recommendations for safe infection control practices and safe injection and medication vial utilization have been implemented. These include single dose and multi-dose vials for a single patient and regulations. It is a well known fact that transmission of bloodborne pathogens during health care procedures continues to occur because of the use of unsafe and improper injection, infusion, and medication administration. Multiple case reports have been published illustrating the occurrence of infections in interventional pain management and other minor techniques because of lack of safe injection practices, and noncompliance with other precautions. However, there are no studies or case reports illustrating the transmission of infection due to the use of single dose vials in multiple patients when appropriate precautions are observed. Similarly, the preparation standards for simple procedures such as medial branch blocks or transforaminal epidurals have not been proven to be essential. Further, the effectiveness or necessity of surgical face masks and hats, etc., for interventional techniques has not been proven. Objective: To assess the rates of infection in patients undergoing interventional techniques. Study Design: A prospective, non-randomized study of patients undergoing interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009. Study Setting: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. Methods: All patients presenting for interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009 are included with documentation of various complications related to interventional techniques including infection. Results: May 2008 to December 2009 a total of 3,179 patients underwent 12,000 encounters with 18,472 procedures. A total of 12 patients reported suspicion of infection. All of them were evaluated by a physician and only one of them was a superficial infection due to the patient’s poor hygienic practices which required no antibiotic therapy. Limitations: Limitations include the nonrandomized observational nature of the study. Conclusion: There were no infections of any significance noted in approximately 3,200 patients with over 18,000 procedures performed during a 20 month period in an ambulatory surgery center utilizing simple precautions for clean procedures with the use of single dose vials for multiple patients and using safe injection practices. Clinical Trial Registrion: NCT00625248 Key words: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, complications, infection, safe injection practices, single dose vials, multi-dose vials, surgical face masks, relative risk.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7;19 (7;9) ◽  
pp. E957-E984
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

In the face of the progressive implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a significant regulatory regime, and the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released its proposed 2017 hospital outpatient department (HOPD) and ambulatory surgery center (ASC) payment rules on July 14, 2016, and the physician payment schedule was released July 15, 2016. U.S. health care costs continue to increase, occupying 17.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 and surpassing $3 trillion in overall health care expenditure. Solo and independent practices face unique challenges and many are being acquired by hospitals or larger groups. This transfer of services to hospital settings is indisputably leading to an increase in the net cost to the system. Comparison of facility payments for interventional techniques in HOPD, ASC, and in-office settings shows wide variation for multiple interventional techniques. Major discrepancies in payment schedules are related to higher payments for hospitals than comparable treatments in in-office settings and ASCs. In-office procedures, which have been converted to ASC procedures, are reimbursed at as high as 1,366% higher than ASCs and 2,156% higher than in-office settings. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has made recommendations on avoiding the discrepancies and site-of-service differentials in in-office settings, hospital outpatient settings, and ASCs. These have not been implemented by CMS. In addition, there have been slow reductions in reimbursements over the recent years, which continue to accumulate, leading to significant reductions in payments In conclusion, equalization of site-of-service differentials will simultaneously improve reimbursement patterns for interventional pain management procedures, increase access and quality of care, and finally, reduce costs for CMS, extending Medicare solvency. Key words: Hospital outpatient departments, ambulatory surgery centers, physician inoffice services, interventional pain management, interventional techniques


2007 ◽  
Vol 5;10 (9;5) ◽  
pp. 627-650
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

There has been an explosive increase in procedures performed in surgery centers, with approximately 4,700 Medicare-certified surgery centers in the United States. Total ambulatory surgical center (ASC) payments have increased substantially: $1 billion in 1996, and $2.9 billion in 2006. In June 1998, the Healthcare Financing Administration (HCFA; CMS), proposed an ASC rule in which at least 60% of interventional procedures were eliminated from ASCs and the remaining 40% faced substantial cuts in payments. Following the publication of this rule, based on public comments and demand, Congress intervened and delayed implementation of the rule for several years. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) granted broad statutory authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to design a new ASC payment system based on the hospital outpatient payment system. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) published its proposed outpatient prospective system for ASCs in 2006, setting ASC payments at 62% of HOPD payments. This rule faced substantial opposition from providers, patients, and Congress. Consequently, CMS revised the rule with a 4-year transition formula to provide ASCs with 65% of HOPD payments. Based on the new proposed rule, most interventional pain management procedures in ASCs will lose approximately 3% to 5% without taking into account that there have not been any increments since 2004, except for a few small increases for some procedures, along with the addition of office procedures, which can now be performed in an ASC setting. However, payments for procedures moved from the office setting to ASCs remain at the lower office rates, which face substantial cuts on their own. The proposed CMS rule will have widespread effects on physician payments, ASC payments, and particularly interventional pain management physicians. Key words: Outpatient prospective payment system, ambulatory surgery center payment system, Government Accountability Office, Medicare Modernization and Improvement Act, interventional techniques


2020 ◽  
pp. 523-653
Author(s):  
Gabor Bela Racz ◽  
Gabor J. Racz ◽  
Tibor A. Racz

2008 ◽  
Vol 4;11 (8;4) ◽  
pp. 393-482
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Background: Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a substitute for clinical judgment. While the guideline development process is a complex phenomenon, conflict of interest in guideline development and inappropriate methodologies must be avoided. It has been alleged that the guidelines by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prevent injured workers from receiving the majority of medically necessary and appropriate interventional pain management services. An independent critical appraisal of both chapters of the ACOEM guidelines showed startling findings with a conclusion that these guidelines may not be applied in patient care as they scored below 30% in the majority of evaluations utilizing multiple standardized criteria. Objective: To reassess the evidence synthesis for the ACOEM guidelines for the low back pain and chronic pain chapters utilizing an expanded methodology, which includes the criteria included in the ACOEM guidelines with the addition of omitted literature and application of appropriate criteria. Methods: For reassessment, randomized trials were utilized as it was in the preparation of the guidelines. In this process, quality of evidence was assessed and recommendations were made based on grading recommendations of Guyatt et al. The level of evidence was determined utilizing the quality of evidence criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as the outdated quality of evidence criteria utilized by ACOEM in the guideline preparation. Methodologic quality of each individual article was assessed utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic assessment criteria for diagnostic interventions and Cochrane methodologic quality assessment criteria for therapeutic interventions. Results: The results of reassessment are vastly different from the conclusions derived by the ACOEM guidelines. The differences in strength of rating for the diagnosis of discogenic pain by provocation discography and facet joint pain by diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is established with strong evidence. Therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, percutaneous and endoscopic adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation qualified for moderate to strong evidence. Additional insight is also provided for evidence rating for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), automated percutaneous disc decompression, and intrathecal implantables. Conclusion: The reassessment and reevaluation of the low back and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines present results that are vastly different from the published and proposed guidelines. Contrary to ACOEM’s conclusions of insufficient evidence for most interventional techniques, the results illustrate moderate to strong evidence for most diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, ACOEM, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, guideline development, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cardenas ◽  
Juan Felipe Vargas-Silva ◽  
Alejandro Ramirez

Abstract Chronic pain of oncological origin is one of the most frequent complications and is difficult to control, that results in a decrease in the quality of life and disability among patients suffering from this pathology. Primary or metastatic tumors originating from lung, colonic, or breast neoplasms can invade the chest wall, causing progressive respiratory pain and symptoms that require multiple interventions to achieve adequate control. Many of these cases presenting with advanced-stage cancer are often incurable; thus, pain management and palliative care are primary objectives. Multimodal management is the strategy of choice in these cases through the participation of a multidisciplinary team. Analgesic therapy covers the use of potent opioids, opioid rotation, adjuvant analgesics, and interventional pain management strategies. We report two cases of chronic oncological pain of the chest wall refractory to pharmacological analgesic management. The optimization of multimodal management and the performance of neurolysis by phenolization of the erector spinae plane achieved an adequate response.


2008 ◽  
Vol 1;11 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 43-55
Author(s):  
YiLi Zhou

Background: A recent study has indicated that quality assurance for interventional pain management procedures (IPMPs) can be achieved in university pain clinics. However, the issue of quality assurance for IPMPs in private practice has not yet been addressed. Objective: This study was designed to monitor the quality of IPMPs in a private pain practice in north Florida. Methods: From November 2005 to July 2006, we monitored the quality of IPMPs in a private pain practice in north Florida. Questionnaires regarding degree of pain relief, patient satisfaction, and complications were handed to patients immediately after the completion of each IPMP. Follow-up phone calls were also made to patients 1 day after the IPMPs. Results: A total of 771 (male: 249, female: 522) patients with a mean age of 58.1 years participated in the study. Office-based IPMPs included lumbar and cervical epidural steroid injections, lumbar and cervical facet joint blocks, selective nerve root blocks, lumbar and cervical sympathetic nerve blocks, sacroiliac joint injection, and large joint injections. Seven-hundred patients (90.8%) reported various degrees of pain relief immediately following IPMPs. Average pain score decreased by 4.3 on a 0 to 10 scale (p=<0.001). Number needed to be treated (NNT) to reach 50% or more pain relief immediately after IPMPs was 1.4. Six-hundred ninety-two (89.7%) patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the results of IPMPs. sixty-two patients (8%) developed headaches after IPMPs, which lasted from 30 minutes to 4 days. None of these patients required a blood patch. Five patients developed moderate vasovagal responses during IPMPs, in which their heart rates decreased to <45/min, BP <90/60mmHg. The IPMPs were aborted immediately. All of these patients recovered uneventfully within a few minutes. No other serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The results of the current study suggest that high quality private interventional pain programs with high efficacy, high patient satisfaction, and low complication rates can be achieved through appropriate staff training, proper monitoring of patients during IPMPs, and adequate handling of patients after the IPMPs. Key words: Interventional pain management procedures, quality assurance, efficacy, patient satisfaction


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document