Academic anaesthesiology: a global perspective on training, support, and future development of early career researchers.

As anaesthesiologists face increasing clinical demands and a limited and competitive funding environment for academic work, the sustainability of academic anaesthesiologists has never been more tenuous. Yet, the speciality needs academic anaesthesiologists in many roles, extending beyond routine clinical duties. Anaesthesiologist educators, researchers, and administrators are required not only to train future generations but also to lead innovation and expansion of anaesthesiology and related specialities, all to improve patient care. This group of early career researchers with geographically distinct training and practice backgrounds aim to highlight the diversity in clinical and academic training and career development pathways for anaesthesiologists globally. Although multiple routes to success exist, one common thread is the need for consistent support of strong mentors and sponsors. Moreover, to address inequitable opportunities, we emphasise the need for diversity and inclusivity through global collaboration and exchange that aims to improve access to research training and participation. We are optimistic that by focusing on these fundamental principles, we can help build a more resilient and sustainable future for academic anaesthesiologists around the world.

NIH HEAL Clinical Data Elements (CDE) implementation: NIH HEAL Initiative IMPOWR network IDEA-CC.

OBJECTIVE: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) HEAL Initiative is making data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) to maximize the value of the unprecedented federal investment in pain and opioid-use disorder research. This involves standardizing the use of common data elements (CDE) for clinical research. METHODS: This work describes the process of the selection, processing, harmonization, and design constraints of CDE across a pain and opioid use disorder clinical trials network (NIH HEAL IMPOWR). RESULTS: The network alignment allowed for incorporation of newer data standards across the clinical trials. Specific advances included geographic coding (RUCA), deidentified patient identifiers (GUID), shareable clinical survey libraries (REDCap), and concept mapping to standardized concepts (UMLS). CONCLUSIONS: While complex, harmonization across a network of chronic pain and opioid use disorder clinical trials with separate interventions can be optimized through use of CDEs and data standardization processes. This standardization process will support the robust secondary data analyses. Scaling this process could standardize CDE results across interventions or disease state which could help inform insurance companies or government organizations about coverage determinations. The development of the HEAL CDE program supports connecting isolated studies and solutions to each other, but the practical aspects may be challenging for some studies to implement. Leveraging tools and technology to simplify process and create ready to use resources may support wider adoption of consistent data standards.

Designing Actionable Solutions and Curriculum for Pain Disparities Education.

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) require medical schools to teach their students how to recognize and work toward eliminating health disparities. However, time constraints and a dearth of guidance for educators in teaching pain disparities curricula pose significant challenges. Herein we describe successes and lessons learned after designing, implementing, and evaluating an innovative pain disparities curriculum that was embedded in a longitudinal health equity curriculum for third year medical school students at an academic institution. Although the curriculum was developed for medical school students, the concepts may be broadly applicable to other training settings such as residency and fellowship programs.

A Standardized Emergency Department Order Set Decreases Admission Rates and In-Patient Length of Stay for Adults Patients with Sickle Cell Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Pain associated with sickle cell disease (SCD) causes severe complications and frequent presentation to the emergency department (ED). Patients with SCD frequently report inadequate pain treatment in the ED, resulting in hospital admission. A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess a quality improvement project to standardize ED care for patients presenting with pain associated with SCD. METHODS: A 3-year prospective quality improvement initiative was performed. Our multidisciplinary team of providers implemented an ED order set in 2019 to improve care and provide adequate analgesia management. Our primary outcome was the overall hospital admission rate for patients after the intervention. Secondary outcome measures included ED disposition, rate of return to the ED within 72 hours, ED pain scores at admission and discharge, ED treatment time, in-patient length of stay, non-opioid medication use, and opioid medication use. RESULTS: There was an overall 67% reduction in the hospital admission rate after implementation of the order set (P = 0.005) and a significant decrease in the percentage admission rate month over month (P = 0.047). Time to the first non-opioid analgesic decreased by 71 minutes (P > 0.001), and there was no change in time to the first opioid medication. The rate of return to the ED within 72 hours remained unchanged (7.0% vs 7.1%) (P = 0.93), and the ED elopement rate remained unchanged (1.3% vs 1.85%) (P = 0.93). After the implementation, there were significant increases in the prescribing of orally administered acetaminophen (7%), celecoxib (1.2%), and tizanidine (12.5%) and intravenous ketamine (30.5%) and ketorolac (27%). ED pain scores at discharge were unchanged for both hospital-admitted (7.12 vs 7.08) (P = 0.93) and non-admitted (5.51 vs 6.11) (P = 0.27) patients. The resulting potential cost reduction was determined to be $193,440 during the 12-month observation period, with the mean cost per visit decreasing by $792. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a standardized and multimodal ED order set reduced hospital admission rates and the timeliness of analgesia without negatively impacting patients' pain.

Implementation of Individualized Pain Care Plans Decreases Length of Stay and Hospital Admission Rates for High Utilizing Adults with Sickle Cell Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) face inconsistent effective analgesic management, leading to high inpatient healthcare utilization and significant financial burden for healthcare institutions. Current evidence does not provide guidance for inpatient management of acute pain in adults with sickle cell disease. We conducted a retrospective analysis of a longitudinal cohort quality improvement project to characterize the role of individualized care plans on improving patient care and reducing financial burden in high healthcare-utilizing patients with SCD-related pain. METHODS: Individualized care plans were developed for patients with hospital admissions resulting from pain associated with sickle cell disease. A 2-year prospective longitudinal cohort quality improvement project was performed and retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome measure was duration of hospitalization. Secondary outcome measures included: pain intensity; 7, 30, and 90-day readmission rates; cost per day; total admissions; total cost per year; analgesic regimen at index admission; and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Duration of hospitalization, the primary outcome, significantly decreased by 1.23 days with no worsening of pain intensity scores. Seven-day readmission decreased by 34%. Use of intravenous hydromorphone significantly decreased by 25%. The potential cost saving was $1,398,827 as a result of this quality initiative. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of individualized care plans reduced both admission rate and financial burden of high utilizing patients. Importantly, pain outcomes were not diminished. Results suggest that individualized care plans are a promising strategy for managing acute pain crisis in adult sickle cell patients from both care-focused and utilization outcomes.

Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for cervical spine (facet) joint pain from a multispecialty international working group.

BACKGROUND: The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. METHODS: In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. RESULTS: Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

AAAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Low Back Pain with and Without Lower Extremity Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Low back pain is one of the most common reasons for which people visit their doctor. Between 12% and 15% of the US population seek care for spine pain each year, with associated costs exceeding $200 billion. Up to 80% of adults will experience acute low back pain at some point in their lives. This staggering prevalence supports the need for increased research to support tailored clinical care of low back pain. This work proposes a multidimensional conceptual taxonomy. METHODS: A multidisciplinary task force of the ACTTION-APS-AAPM Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) with clinical and research expertise performed a focused review and analysis, applying the AAAPT five-dimensional framework to acute low back pain. RESULTS: Application of the AAAPT framework yielded the following: 1) Core Criteria: location, timing, and severity of acute low back pain were defined; 2) Common Features: character and expected trajectories were established in relevant subgroups, and common pain assessment tools were identified; 3) Modulating Factors: biological, psychological, and social factors that modulate interindividual variability were delineated; 4) Impact/Functional Consequences: domains of impact were outlined and defined; 5) Neurobiological Mechanisms: putative mechanisms were specified including nerve injury, inflammation, peripheral and central sensitization, and affective and social processing of acute low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: The goal of applying the AAAPT taxonomy to acute low back pain is to improve its assessment through a defined evidence and consensus-driven structure. The criteria proposed will enable more rigorous meta-analyses and promote more generalizable studies of interindividual variation in acute low back pain and its potential underlying mechanisms.

Re-assessing the Validity of the Opioid Risk Tool in a Tertiary Academic Pain Management Center Population.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the validity of the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) in a large. diverse population. DESIGN: A cross-sectional descriptive study. SETTING: Academic tertiary pain management center. SUBJECTS: A total of 225 consecutive new patients, aged 18 years or older. METHODS: Data collection included demographics, ORT scores, aberrant behaviors, pain intensity scores, opioid type and dose, smoking status, employment, and marital status. RESULTS: In this population, we were not able to replicate the findings of the initial ORT study. Self-report was no better than chance in predicting those who would have an opioid aberrant behavior. The ORT risk variables did not predict aberrant behaviors in either gender group. There was significant disparity in the scores between self-reported ORT and the ORT supplemented with medical record data (enhanced ORT). Using the enhanced ORT, high-risk patients were 2.5 times more likely to have an aberrant behavior than the low-risk group. The only risk variable associated with aberrant behavior was personal history of prescription drug misuse. CONCLUSIONS: The self-report ORT was not a valid test for the prediction of future aberrant behaviors in this academic pain management population. The original risk categories (low, medium, high) were not supported in the either the self-reported version or the enhanced version; however, the enhanced data were able to differentiate between high- and low-risk patients. Unfortunately, without technological automation, the enhanced ORT suffers from practical limitations. The self-report ORT may not be a valid tool in current pain populations; however, modification into a binary (high/low) score system needs further study.

Connecting Chronic Pain and Opioid Use Disorder Clinical Trials Through Data Harmonization: Wake Forest IMPOWR Dissemination, Education, and Coordination Center (IDEA-CC).

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has developed the NIH HEAL Integrative Management of chronic Pain and OUD for Whole Recovery (IMPOWR) network to address the interconnected nature of chronic pain (CP) and opioid use disorder (OUD), which are influenced by mental health. The network aims to develop integrated treatment pathways across multiple sites in the United States. The IMPOWR Dissemination, Education, and Coordination Center (IDEA-CC) is proposed to support the NIH HEAL IMPOWR network by developing a CP- and OUD-focused infrastructure that includes measures of stigma, trauma, and quality of life. This includes deploying a data framework to link clinical sites, developing an educational infrastructure to address stigma and health disparities, and disseminating research findings. The IDEA-CC will standardize data collection processes, develop web-based data commons, and facilitate data sharing opportunities. The IDEA-CC will support the development and validation of composite CP and OUD measures and will develop educational materials to address stigma and health disparities. Overall, the IDEA-CC will create a research community and data commons that connect NIH HEAL IMPOWR centers to translate findings and develop a key CP-OUD research data, and education infrastructure.

Barriers, facilitators, and recommendations to increase the use of a clinical decision support tool for managing chronic pain in primary care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Primary care providers (PCPs) use poorly organized patient information in electronic health records (EHR) within a limited time when treating patients with chronic pain. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools assist PCPs by synthesizing patient information and prompting guideline-concordant treatment decisions. A CDS tool- Chronic Pain OneSheet was developed through a user-centered design process to support PCP's decision-making for patients with chronic noncancer pain. OneSheet aggregates relevant patient information in one place in the EHR. OneSheet also guides PCPs in completing guideline-recommended opioid risk management tasks, tracking patient treatments, and documenting pain-related symptoms. Our objective was to identify barriers, facilitators, and recommendations to increase OneSheet use for chronic noncancer pain management in primary care. METHODS: We conducted 19 qualitative interviews with PCPs from two academic health systems who had access to OneSheet in their EHR. Interview transcripts were coded to identify common themes using a modified thematic approach. RESULTS: PCPs identified several barriers to using OneSheet, including limited time to address patient needs associated with multiple chronic conditions, resistance to changing established workflows, and complex OneSheet display. PCPs reported several facilitators to using OneSheet, such as OneSheet's ability to serve as a hub for chronic pain data, easy access to features that facilitate completing mandatory tasks and improved planning for certain patient visits. PCPs recommended prioritizing access to commonly used features, adding display customization capabilities, and expanding access to patients and other team members to increase OneSheet use. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the importance of acknowledging the PCP workflow and task load when designing CDS tools. Future CDS tools should balance the extent of information provided with assisting PCPs to fulfill mandatory tasks. Expanding CDS tools to multiple care team members and patients can also lead to higher use by facilitating data entry, leading to more streamlined care delivery.

Age, Race, Ethnicity, and Sex of Participants in Clinical Trials Focused on Chronic Pain.

There is limited data on equitable inclusion in chronic pain trials. We aimed to 1) identify the frequency of reporting age, race, ethnicity, and sex in clinical trials targeting chronic pain, and 2) compare sociodemographic representation to the United States (US) population. We examined US-based intervention trials for chronic pain initiated between 2007 and 2021 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. We 1) assessed the frequency of reporting each demographic variable, 2) compared representation with US population estimates, and 3) explored change in reporting over time. Of 501 clinical trials, the frequency of reporting was as follows: 36.9% reported older adults, 54.3% reported race, 37.4% reported ethnicity, and 100% reported sex. Rates of race and ethnicity reporting increased, but older adult age reporting decreased over time (ps < .00001). Compared to 2020 US population estimates, there was an equitable representation of older adults, under-representation of individuals identifying as American Indian or Alaska Native (.8% vs .6%), Asian (5.6% vs 2.9%), Black or African American (12.6% vs 12.2%), with more than one race (2.9% vs 1.2%), and Hispanic/Latino (16.9% vs 14.1%). There was an over-representation of individuals identifying as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (.2% vs .5%) or White (70.4% vs 72.9%), and of females (50.8% vs 68.4%). Some representation rates varied by chronic pain condition. Reporting of older adult age, race, and ethnicity was low in chronic pain trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, reinforcing the need for adhering to reporting guidelines. Representation varied across trials compared with US population data, particularly among those identifying as Hispanic/Latino and certain minority racial groups. PERSPECTIVE: Despite initiatives to increase the reporting of demographic information, doing so in clinical pain trials is far from ubiquitous. Moreover, efforts to improve diversity in these trials continue to be insufficient. Indeed, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) remain under-represented in clinical pain trials.

Neuropathic pain: treatment guidelines and updates.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of neuropathic pain. RECENT FINDINGS: Neuropathic pain can be debilitating, leading to poor quality of life and functional status. Neuropathic pain results from numerous mechanisms of nerve injury including infectious diseases, complication of medical diseases, and mechanical damage. As a result of the lack of class I evidence for the treatment of numerous neuropathic pain conditions, those diseases without such evidence are often managed, as though neuropathic pain is a singular condition. In diseases such as diabetes, HIV, and herpes infections, the resultant neuropathic pain is often modifiable with prevention strategies. In one of the more prevalent neuropathic pain conditions, radiculopathy, the commonly used treatments lack sufficient evidence to explain their widespread use. SUMMARY: The literature reveals that neuropathic pain is underdiagnosed and often undertreated or treated with ineffective or untested modalities. Evolving definitions of neuropathic pain has broadened the range of therapeutic approaches and brought current treatment paradigms under increased scrutiny. The lack of a mechanism-based approach to treatment may be responsible for the lackluster responses seen in most neuropathic pain conditions.

Daring discourse: artificial intelligence in pain medicine, opportunities and challenges.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are currently expanding their influence within healthcare. For pain clinics, unfettered introduction of AI may cause concern in both patients and healthcare teams. Much of the concern stems from the lack of community standards and understanding of how the tools and algorithms function. Data literacy and understanding can be challenging even for experienced healthcare providers as these topics are not incorporated into standard clinical education pathways. Another reasonable concern involves the potential for encoding bias in healthcare screening and treatment using faulty algorithms. And yet, the massive volume of data generated by healthcare encounters is increasingly challenging for healthcare teams to navigate and will require an intervention to make the medical record manageable in the future. AI approaches that lighten the workload and support clinical decision-making may provide a solution to the ever-increasing menial tasks involved in clinical care. The potential for pain providers to have higher-quality connections with their patients and manage multiple complex data sources might balance the understandable concerns around data quality and decision-making that accompany introduction of AI. As a specialty, pain medicine will need to establish thoughtful and intentionally integrated AI tools to help clinicians navigate the changing landscape of patient care.

Examining primary care provider experiences with using a clinical decision support tool for pain management.

Objective: To evaluate primary care provider (PCP) experiences using a clinical decision support (CDS) tool over 16 months following a user-centered design process and implementation. Materials and Methods: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the Chronic Pain OneSheet (OneSheet), a chronic pain CDS tool. OneSheet provides pain- and opioid-related risks, benefits, and treatment information for patients with chronic pain to PCPs. Using the 5 Rights of CDS framework, we conducted and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 19 PCPs across 2 academic health systems. Results: PCPs stated that OneSheet mostly contained the right information required to treat patients with chronic pain and was correctly located in the electronic health record. PCPs used OneSheet for distinct subgroups of patients with chronic pain, including patients prescribed opioids, with poorly controlled pain, or new to a provider or clinic. PCPs reported variable workflow integration and selective use of certain OneSheet features driven by their preferences and patient population. PCPs recommended broadening OneSheet access to clinical staff and patients for data entry to address clinician time constraints. Discussion: Differences in patient subpopulations and workflow preferences had an outsized effect on CDS tool use even when the CDS contained the right information identified in a user-centered design process. Conclusions: To increase adoption and use, CDS design and implementation processes may benefit from increased tailoring that accommodates variation and dynamics among patients, visits, and providers.

Evaluation of electronic recruitment efforts of primary care providers as research subjects during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting healthcare providers as research subjects often rely on in-person recruitment strategies. Little is known about recruiting provider participants via electronic recruitment methods. In this study, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, we describe and evaluate a primarily electronic approach to recruiting primary care providers (PCPs) as subjects in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a decision support intervention. METHODS: We adapted an existing framework for healthcare provider research recruitment, employing an electronic consent form and a mix of brief synchronous video presentations, email, and phone calls to recruit PCPs into the RCT. To evaluate the success of each electronic strategy, we estimated the number of consented PCPs associated with each strategy, the number of days to recruit each PCP and recruitment costs. RESULTS: We recruited 45 of 63 eligible PCPs practicing at ten primary care clinic locations over 55 days. On average, it took 17 business days to recruit a PCP (range 0-48) and required three attempts (range 1-7). Email communication from the clinic leaders led to the most successful recruitments, followed by brief synchronous video presentations at regularly scheduled clinic meetings. We spent approximately $89 per recruited PCP. We faced challenges of low email responsiveness and limited opportunities to forge relationships. CONCLUSION: PCPs can be efficiently recruited at low costs as research subjects using primarily electronic communications, even during a time of high workload and stress. Electronic peer leader outreach and synchronous video presentations may be particularly useful recruitment strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04295135 . Registered 04 March 2020.