Anaesthesia, 2002, 57, pages 284–313
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Correspondence
patients and patients with a potential to
deteriorate rather than Ôopen a veritable
PandoraÕs Box’. The introduction of
early warning scores (e.g. MEWS) and
the ALERT course [1], which is now
evolved and running in many hospitals,
should be able to take the pressure off
the critical care services, at least in the
long run. Time will tell whether Crit-
ical Care Outreach teams will do an
equal, lesser or better job in this role
than the Acute Pain teams. Compre-
hensive critical care outreach service is a
24-h, 7-days a week service, unlike the
acute pain service, which is a 9–5,
Monday to Friday service in almost all
hospitals we have worked in. At the
most unsocial time the Ôacute pain (ful)
babyÕ is left to be attended by a
surrogate. An important point in this
debate has been overlooked. Acute pain
teams are involved almost exclusively
with surgical patients. Their usefulness
in helping manage sick medical patients
are very limited, a large proportion of
admissions to ICU being ÔmedicalÕ. We
see no problem in the possibility that
there may be two teams potentially
reviewing the patients. If nothing else,
this gives sick patients Ôtwo bites of the
cherryÕ in terms of chances that prob-
lems will be detected soon enough to
benefit them. Ideally, the Acute Pain
Service in a hospital would work
alongside the Critical Care team in
wards contributing in their areas of
undoubted expertise.
We suppose we are in a world of
fantasy, as we foresee that the acute pain
teams will have to be amalgamated
within the outreach service. There
would be no point and it would be
extremely expensive to run two teams.
The expert group which reviewed adult
critical care services was determined
that their proposals should describe a
service which would meet the needs of
patients and be delivered by professions
and specialities working in partnership
and says Ôsuccessful implementation de-
pends on breaking down the barriers
between specialities and professions to
focus on the needs of the patientÕ [2].
ments such as X-ray and have supervised
the hospital-wide implementation of
Entonox and supported the dissemin-
ation of its use into community practice.
Recognizing the poor standards in key
areas of practice, they have facilitated the
introduction of standardised regimens for
postoperative antiemesis, postoperative
oxygen and more recently undertaken
initiatives to improve peri-operative
fluid management. These include the
introduction of new pre-operative
fluid ⁄ starvation guidelines and the
standardisation of pre- and postoperative
fluid regimens. Over the years, the
service has established the principle of
direct referral of sick patients to Inten-
sive Care by acute pain nurses. This was
achieved long before the publication of
ÔComprehensive Critical CareÕ, despite
initial opposition from a number of the
intensive care consultants. Clearly, a
service such as this has much experience
of value when planning a hospital wide
service such as ÔOutreachÕ and whilst I
accept that not all APS have developed
to quite this degree, all have a great deal
to offer for the reasons outlined in my
original article.
To my mind the ÔoutreachÕ recom-
mendation is the most important aspect
of the document, not as you suggest a
Ôsmall partÕ. It is this initiative, if as a
profession we can get it right, that could
ultimately benefit the most patients. Is it
enough to rely on MEWS and ALERT
simply to avert the tide of new referrals to
ICU, which I doubt they will do, or
should we be trying to do more? Surely,
it is better to prevent physiological
deterioration from occurring in the first
place. Comprehensive Critical Care fails
to address this issue. In my experience,
intensive care physicians are quick to
criticise the poor fluid management, lack
of oxygen or analgesia that has led to a
patient’s deterioration, yet they have
little concept of how and why these
problems occurred or as to how they can
be avoided. Above all else, it is this insight
that Acute Pain Services has to offer.
So what of MEWS and ALERT in
which Drs Prasad and Acharya put so
much faith? To date, early warning
systems have only been validated on
surgical wards and more recently on a
medical admissions unit [1]. I am only
References
1 ALERT – Acute Life-threatening
Events – Recognition and Treatment.
A multiprofessional course in the care of the
acutely ill patients -School of Postgraduate
Medicine. University of Portsmouth.
2 Department of Health. A review of
adult critical care services. Comprehen-
sive Critical Care. May 2000.
A reply
Clearly, the need for a review of critical
care services has been long overdue.
There is a need for the involvement of
NHS executives in order to empower
the financial backing to allow improve-
ments to take place, but the question of
balance remains a key issue. Would a
broader representation of clinicians have
led to a more balanced perspective?
Certainly on the issue of the objectives
of ÔOutreach Critical CareÕ I think it
would have.
From what I can ascertain, the only
direct input from an ÔAcute PainÕ prac-
titioner in the North-west has been the
involvement of a nurse practitioner at
the zonal meetings in the Preston
(which includes Blackpool) area. I am
unaware of any involvement beyond
this. How then can the experiences of
acute pain have been fully considered as
claimed?
The comments of Drs Prasad and
Acharya show a naive lack of insight
into what Acute Pain Services (APS)
have to offer and what they have
achieved: a naivete´, I suspect, that is
sadly reflected more generally amongst
intensive care physicians. As a case in
point, let us look briefly at the achieve-
ments of one of the Acute Pain Services
in the North-west.
Beginning largely as a postoperative
service, they have spread over the past
10 years to include support for patients
in pain in many areas across the hospital
including paediatrics, accident and
emergency and medicine. They have
supported the use of acute pain tech-
niques when required in medical and
palliative care settings including home
epidurals and have provided multi-
disciplinary teaching programmes in all
settings to support these initiatives. They
have introduced improvements in the
management of incident pain in depart-
C. V. Prasad
D. Acharya
Blackpool Victoria Hospital,
Blackpool FY3 8NR, UK
Ó 2002 Blackwell Science Ltd
285