D’Souza, Ryan

Introduction Psychological comorbidities can negatively impact outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain. While psychological assessment is commonly required before SCS implantation, evidence supporting its impact on outcomes is limited, and such assessments may be unnecessary for many patients and contribute to delays in care. Our center implemented a screening tool incorporating validated questionnaires and a mental health checklist to triage the need for formal psychological evaluation. This prospective, observational cohort study compared outcomes of SCS trials and implants between patients who bypassed (fast track: FT) versus those who underwent a formal assessment by a psychologist (AP). Methods Data were collected from patients undergoing SCS trials between July 2017 and December 2021. The screening tool used thresholds on validated questionnaires assessing anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and opioid misuse risk, along with a checklist capturing significant anxiety or depression, self-harm, substance abuse, or mental-health-related hospitalization. Patients screening positive underwent an AP; others proceeded directly to trial (FT). 1 year post implantation outcomes were collected, with successful implantation defined as ≥30% pain reduction from baseline. Results Of 171 patients (114 AP, 57 FT), trial-to-implant rates were similar (72% AP vs 70% FT, p=0.811). The proportion of responders at 1 year post implant was also comparable (53% AP vs 60% FT, p=0.927). Multivariate logistic regression identified that higher baseline pain intensity (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, p=0.011) and use of tricyclic antidepressants (aOR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.56, p=0.005) were associated with implant failure, whereas pain duration >10 years was associated with implant success (aOR 3.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 9.02, p=0.039). Conclusions This screening tool effectively identifies patients who can bypass routine psychological assessment without compromising 1 year SCS outcomes. Implementation can streamline patient flow, reduce wait times, and reserve psychological resources for those who need formal evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Recent years have seen considerable growth and significant changes in the anesthesiology residency application process. Although the National Residency Match Program provides data on attributes of successfully matching applicants, it does not provide detailed characteristics of applicants’ research portfolio. This single-program retrospective analysis aims to characterize granular aspects of applicant research experiences to determine whether research involvement is linked to higher odds of matching. METHODS: Applications from interviewed United States allopathic (US-MD) and osteopathic (US-DO) applicants at a single anesthesiology residency program were analyzed for research experience. The primary outcome assessed was the association of any research experience with odds of ranked-to-match and the association of specific types of research experience with ranked-to-match. Secondary outcomes included the association of medical degree type (US-MD vs US-DO) or affiliation of medical school with an anesthesiology residency program to the number of research experiences, and the association of research experiences with the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score type (Pass/Fail vs Scored). RESULTS: Applicants with at least one research experience were more likely to be ranked-to-match than applicants without research experience (odds ratio [OR]: 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI], [1.55–3.02], P < .001). Similar odds were demonstrated for applicants with at least one peer-reviewed publication compared to no peer-reviewed publications (OR: 2.25, 95% CI, [1.79–2.82], P < .001), and at least one anesthesiology-related research experience compared to no anesthesiology-related research experience (OR: 1.76, 95% CI, [1.36–2.26], P < .001. Applicants from US-MD schools were more likely to have research experience than those from US-DO schools ( P < .001); applicants from a medical school affiliated with an anesthesiology residency were more likely to have research experience than applicants from unaffiliated medical schools ( P < .001); and applicants with Pass/Fail USMLE Step 1 examinations were more likely than their Scored counterparts to report at least one research experience ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Applicant research is associated with greater odds of being ranked-to-match in anesthesiology residency. Applicants from US-MD schools and schools affiliated with anesthesiology residency programs have significantly greater rates of reporting at least one research experience. There is a trend toward a higher incidence of reporting at least one research experience with the change of USMLE Step 1 policy toward a Pass/Fail examination.