RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved the first pain medicine fellowship programs over three decades ago, designed around a pharmacological philosophy. Following that, there has been a rise in the transition of pain medicine education toward a multidisciplinary interventional model based on a tremendous surge of contemporaneous literature in these areas. This trend has created variability in clinical experience and education amongst accredited pain medicine programs with minimal literature evaluating the differences and commonalities in education and experience of different pain medicine fellowships through Program Director (PD) experiences. This study aims to gather insight from pain medicine fellowship program directors across the country to assess clinical and interventional training, providing valuable perspectives on the future of pain medicine education. METHODS: This study involved 56 PDs of ACGME-accredited pain fellowship programs in the United States. The recruitment process included three phases: advanced notification, invitation, and follow-up to maximize response rate. Participants completed a standard online questionnaire, covering various topics such as subcategory fields, online platforms for supplemental education, clinical experience, postgraduate practice success, and training adequacy. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 39/56 (69%) standing members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). All PDs allowed fellows to participate in industry-related and professional society-related procedural workshops, with 59% encouraging these workshops. PDs emphasized the importance of integrity, professionalism, and diligence for long-term success. Fifty-four percent of PDs expressed the need for extension of fellowship training to avoid supplemental education by industry or pain/spine societies. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the challenge of providing adequate training in all Pain Medicine subtopics within a 12-month pain medicine fellowship. PDs suggest the need for additional training for fellows and discuss the importance of curriculum standardization.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be an effective and safe option to treat patients with intractable pain in the general population. Our study examined the experience of US veterans with SCS. METHODS: We reviewed electronic health records and conducted phone interviews with 65 veterans who had SCS from 2008 to 2020 at the Southeastern Louisiana Veterans Health Care System (SLVHCS). Our primary outcome measure was veteran would recommend SCS to peers. Secondary outcomes were improvements in activities of daily living and ability to decrease opioid pain medications. RESULTS: A majority (77%) of veterans recommended SCS to their peers. Statistical difference was seen in 16 of 18 categories of activities of daily living based on the Pain Outcomes Questionnaire. No permanent neurologic deficits or deaths were associated with SCS use. There were no neurological sequelae. Three patients (5%) developed skin dehiscence postimplant and were treated with explant surgery but all were eager to get a new SCS implanted. CONCLUSION: Veterans at SLVHCS were satisfied with their experience using SCS and few experienced adverse effects.