Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Chronic pain is a personal experience influenced by multiple biopsychosocial factors. Using a pain intensity measure alone to assess the effectiveness of a chronic pain intervention fails to fully evaluate its impact on the multifaceted chronic pain experience. The holistic minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a composite outcome developed to provide a comprehensive assessment of chronic pain in response to intervention, across 5 outcome domains: pain intensity, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, physical, and emotional function. To focus on domains where the individual need is greatest, the holistic MCID reflects the cumulative MCID averaged over only the domains where subjects were impaired preintervention. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:To assess the internal and construct validity of the Holistic MCID score to inform its future use as an evidence-based tool. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This validation study was undertaken using data from the EVOKE trial with 111 patients up to 24-month follow-up. Internal consistency of the holistic MCID was assessed using Cronbach alpha statistic and dimensional exploration using principal component analysis. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< 0.001). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The holistic MCID provides a valid measure for the comprehensive, personalized assessment of response after a chronic pain intervention. The validity of the holistic MCID requires further confirmation in other chronic pain populations and with different interventions.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: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/CONCLUSIONS: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.

BACKGROUND:Since 1992, when the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) acknowledged pain medicine as a subspecialty, the field has experienced significant growth in its number of programs, diversity of sponsoring specialties, treatment algorithms, and popularity among applicants. These shifts prompted changes to the educational model, overseen by program directors (PDs) and the ACGME. The pool of pain fellowship applicants also changed during that period. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study aims to investigate trainees' reasons for applying to pain medicine fellowship programs as well as the applicants' specific expectations, interests, and motivations, thereby contributing to the remodeling and universal improvement of programs across the country. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Online survey via SurveyMonkey. The online questionnaire targeted pain fellowship applicants in 2023 and current fellows in the US. METHODS:Our study was designed by board members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). The board disseminated a survey to those who applied to ACGME Pain Medicine fellowships in 2023 as well as to existing fellows. The survey was emailed to residency and fellowship PDs for dissemination to their trainees. The participants answered a 12-question survey on their reasons for pursuing pain medicine fellowships, expectations of and beyond those fellowships, and educational adjustments. RESULTS:There were 283 survey participants (80% applicants in residency training and 20% fellows). Participants ranked basic interventional procedures and a strong desire to learn advanced procedures as the most significant factors in pursuing a pain fellowship. Most trainees (70%) did not wish to pursue a 2-year fellowship, and 50% desired to go into private practice. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:The relatively small number of respondents is a limitation that could introduce sampling error. Since most of the respondents were from the fields of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) and anesthesia, the use of convenience sampling reduced our ability to generalize the results to the wider community. Furthermore, approximately 80% of the trainees were residents, who might have had less experience in or knowledge of the survey's particulars than did the fellows. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This survey demonstrated that procedural volume and diversity were important factors in trainees' decisions to apply to the field of pain medicine; however, extending the duration of a pain fellowship was not an option survey participants favored. Therefore, PDs and educational stakeholders in pain fellowship training need to develop creative strategies to maintain competitive applicants' interest while they adapt to our evolving field.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified a significant gap in resources and guidelines that aim to educate healthcare providers for best practices when engaging on social media. As part of the broader initiatives on Spine and Nerve practice, the executive board of ASPN has decided it would be beneficial to include comprehensive guidance for healthcare providers when engaging on social media. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A panel of experts was chosen based on expertise, publications, diversity, and their social media presence. Along with expert guidance, the committee conducted an extensive analysis of peer-reviewed literature in communication and medical journals to determine best practices for healthcare practitioners on social media. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Social media messages significantly impact patients' and colleagues' perceptions and actions regarding medical issues. As such, providers and their teams must be aware of legal and ethical considerations in healthcare while maintaining a consistent, educational, and digestible persona online. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The advancement of communication and medical technologies and systems necessitates continued education and resources to adapt to our rapidly changing media and medical landscape.

Introduction: Pain is a global phenomenon encompassing many subtypes that include neuropathic, musculoskeletal, acute postoperative, cancer, and geriatric pain. Traditionally, opioids have been a mainstay pharmacological agent for managing many types of pain. However, opioids have been a subject of controversy with increased addiction, fatality rates, and cost burden on the US healthcare system. Cannabinoids have emerged as a potentially favorable alternative or adjunctive treatment for various types of acute and chronic pain. This narrative review seeks to describe the efficacy, risks, and benefits of cannabinoids as an adjunct or even potential replacement for opioids in the treatment of various subtypes of pain. Methods: In June of 2022, we performed a comprehensive search across multiple databases for English-language studies related to the use of cannabinoids in the treatment of various types pain: neuropathic pain, musculoskeletal pain, acute postoperative pain, cancer pain, and geriatric pain. Data from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized control trials (RCTs) were prioritized for reporting. We sought to focus our reported analysis on more recent literature as well as include older relevant studies with particularly notable findings. Results: There is conflicting evidence for the use of cannabinoids in the management of pain. While cannabinoids have shown efficacy in treating specific chronic pain subtypes such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia pain, and geriatric pain, they do not show as clear benefit in acute postoperative and the majority of musculoskeletal pain syndromes. Data trends towards cannabinoids having a positive effect in treating cancer pain, but results are not as conclusive. To date, there is a paucity of data comparing cannabinoids directly to opioids for pain relief. Overall, the side effects of cannabinoids appear to be relatively mild. However, there is still potential for addiction, altered brain development, psychiatric comorbidities, and drug"“drug interactions. Conclusion: Cannabinoids may be effective in specific subtypes of pain, but current evidence and guidelines do not yet support its use as the first-line treatment for any type of acute or chronic pain. Rather, it may be considered a good adjunct or alternative for patients who have failed more typical or conservative measures. Additional studies are needed with standardized forms of cannabinoids, route of delivery, and dosing for greater-powered analysis. Providers must weigh the individualized patient risks, benefits, and concurrent medication list in order to determine whether cannabinoids are appropriate for a patient"™s pain treatment plan.

With continued innovations in neuromodulation comes the need for evolving reviews of best practices. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has significantly improved the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and it has broad applicability across a wide range of other conditions. Through funding and organizational leadership by the American Society for Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN), this best practices consensus document has been developed for the selection, implantation, and use of DRG stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. This document is composed of a comprehensive narrative literature review that has been performed regarding the role of the DRG in chronic pain and the clinical evidence for DRG-S as a treatment for multiple pain etiologies. Best practice recommendations encompass safety management, implantation techniques, and mitigation of the potential complications reported in the literature. Looking to the future of neuromodulation, DRG-S holds promise as a robust intervention for otherwise intractable pain.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:The evolution of treatment options for painful spinal disorders in diverse settings has produced a variety of approaches to patient care among clinicians from multiple professional backgrounds. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Best Practice group identified a need for a multidisciplinary guideline regarding appropriate and effective informed consent processes for spine procedures. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:The ASPN Informed Consent Guideline was developed to provide clinicians with a comprehensive evaluation of patient consent practices during the treatment of spine pathology. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:After a needs assessment, ASPN determined that best practice regarding proper informed consent for spinal procedures was needed and a process of selecting faculty was developed based on expertise, diversity, and knowledge of the subject matter. A comprehensive literature search was conducted and when appropriate, evidence grading was performed. Recommendations were based on evidence when available, and when limited, based on consensus opinion. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Following a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Informed Consent Guideline group rated the literature to assist with specification of best practice regarding patient consent during the management of spine disorders. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Careful attention to informed consent is critical in achieving an optimal outcome and properly educating patients. This process involves a discussion of risks, advantages, and alternatives to treatment. As the field of interventional pain and spine continues to grow, it is imperative that clinicians effectively educate patients and obtain comprehensive informed consent for invasive procedures. This consent should be tailored to the patient's specific needs to ensure an essential recognition of patient autonomy and reasonable expectations of treatment.