Moeschler, Susan M.

AbstractObjectiveWe quantified the representation of female program directors (PDs) and assessed their respective demographics, academic metrics, and program-related characteristics in chronic pain and acute pain medicine fellowship programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).MethodsWe identified chronic and acute pain PDs on the ACGME website on November 15, 2020. We abstracted data from public databases and performed comparisons of demographics, academic metrics, and program-related characteristics between female and male PDs.ResultsWe identified 111 chronic pain programs and 35 acute pain programs. Overall, there were 35 (31.5%) chronic pain programs with a female PD and 76 (68.5%) chronic pain programs with a male PD. Female chronic pain PDs published fewer peer-reviewed articles (4.0 publications, interquartile range [IQR] = 2.0–12.0) compared with male chronic pain PDs (9.0 publications, IQR = 4.0–27.0; P = 0.050), although there was no difference in the H-index score (3.0 vs 4.0 publications, respectively; P = 0.062) or senior academic rank status (57.1% vs 50.0%, respectively; P = 0.543). There were 10 (28.6%) acute pain programs with a female PD and 25 (71.4%) acute pain programs with a male PD. Similar to the chronic pain cohort, there was no difference in senior academic rank status based on gender in acute pain PDs (50.0% vs 24.0%, respectively; P = 0.227).ConclusionOur study highlights gender differences in the PD role in ACGME-accredited chronic and acute pain fellowships. Female PDs remain underrepresented and have fewer peer-reviewed publications. Senior academic rank status was similar across genders, contradicting the current evidence in academic medicine.

Introduction Spinal cord stimulation is frequently used for the treatment of intractable chronic pain conditions. Trialing of the spinal cord stimulator device is recommended to assess the patient’s response to neurostimulation before permanent implantation. The trial response is often assessed by Numeric Rating Scale changes and patient-reported percentage pain improvement. Using number rating scale changes between prespinal and postspinal cord stimulation trial, a calculated percentage pain improvement can be obtained. The aim of this study was to assess the difference between calculated and patient-reported percentage improvement in pain scale during spinal cord stimulation trials. Methods This study was a retrospective single center review of all spinal cord stimulation trials from January 1 2017 to July 1 2019. A total of 174 patients were included. The paired t-test was used to compare numeric pain scores obtained prestimulation versus poststimulation. The mean difference between methods (patient-reported minus calculated) was compared with zero using the 1-sample t-test. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient was computed with a 95% CI, calculated using Fisher z-transformation; and a bootstrapping approach was used to compare the concordance correlation coefficient between groups. In all cases, two-tailed tests were used with p<0.05 considered statistically significant. Results Based on prestimulation and poststimulation numeric rating scale scores, the mean±SD calculated percentage improvement in pain scale was 54±28. The mean±SD patient-reported percentage improvement in pain scale was 59±25. The overall 95% limits of agreement for the two methods are −30% to +41%. The overall concordance correlation coefficient was 0.76 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.81). Conclusion Although the two methods are highly correlated, there is substantial lack of agreement between patient-reported and calculated percentage improvement in pain scale, suggesting that these measures should not be used interchangeably for spinal cord stimulator trial outcome assessment. This emphasizes the need for improved metrics to better measure patient response to neuromodulation therapies. Additionally, patient-reported percentage improvement in pain was found to be higher than calculated percentage improvement in pain, potentially highlighting the multidimensional experience of pain and the unpredictability of solely using Numeric Rating Scale scores to assess patient outcomes.

Abstract The primary aim of this randomized clinical trial is to investigate the effects of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) vs ultrasound-guided trigger point injections (TPIs) on numerical rating scale pain scores at month 3 follow-up in patients with a chronic abdominal wall pain. The primary outcome measure was the difference in mean numeric rating scale pain scores between the TAP and TPI groups at month 3 in an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. A total of 60 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive an ultrasound-guided TAP block (n = 30) or an ultrasound-guided TPI (n = 30). No significant group differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics were observed. The mean baseline pain score for the TAP and TPI groups was 5.5 and 4.7, respectively. In the ITT analysis at month 3, the between-group difference in pain scores was 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 0.3-3.0) favoring the TPI group. In a secondary per-protocol analysis, the between-group difference in pain scores was 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-3.2) favoring the TPI group. For the ITT and per-protocol analyses, the group differences in pain scores were consistent with a medium effect size. The main finding of this randomized clinical trial is that adults with chronic abdominal wall pain who received a TPI reported significantly lower pain scores at month 3 follow-up compared with patients who received a TAP block.

Purpose To evaluate the relationship between help-seeking concerns and attitudes and burnout among residents. Method In 2019, all residents across the 4 Mayo Clinic sites were surveyed. The survey included 2 items from the Maslach Burnout Inventory, an item from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication about likelihood of seeking professional help for a serious emotional problem, and items developed to explore residents’ help-seeking behaviors and concerns. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted for each outcome variable and included age, gender, specialty, postgraduate year, site, and burnout. Results Of the 1,146 residents to whom surveys were sent, 762 (66.5%) responded. Nearly half (342/747, 45.8%) were concerned about negative consequence to their career if they went on medical leave, and one-third (247/753, 32.8%) were reluctant to seek professional help for a serious emotional concern. Of the 437 residents who had never attended a personal health appointment during scheduled work, 34.6% (151) thought it would be difficult to tell a supervising physician they needed to miss work due to a scheduled appointment. On multivariable analysis, burnout was independently associated with reporting it would be difficult to tell a supervising physician of a need to attend an appointment (odds ratio [OR] 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.46, 3.67; P < .001), being concerned about negative consequence to their career if they went on medical leave (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.49, 2.93; P < .001), and reluctance to seek professional care for a serious emotional problem (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.17, 2.34; P = .004). Conclusions Barriers to self-care and help-seeking are common among residents and may be worse among those with burnout. Strategies to reduce stigma and promote a culture of well-being are needed.

Purpose To explore the relationship between residents’ perceptions of residency program leadership team behaviors and resident burnout and satisfaction. Method In February 2019, the authors surveyed all residents across the 77 graduate medical education training programs at Mayo Clinic’s multiple sites. Survey items measured residents’ perceptions of program director and associate program director behaviors (using a composite residency program leadership team score), resident burnout, and resident satisfaction with the program and organization. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships between these variables at the individual resident (adjusting for age, sex, postgraduate training year, program location, and specialty) and program (including only programs with at least 5 respondents) levels. Results Of the 1,146 residents surveyed, 762 (66.5%) responded. At the individual resident level, higher composite leadership team scores were associated with lower emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and higher overall satisfaction with the residency program and organization (all P < .001). In adjusted logistic regression models, each 1-point gain in composite leadership team score was associated with 9% lower odds of burnout, 20% higher odds of program satisfaction, and 19% higher odds of satisfaction with the organization (all P < .001). At the residency program level, higher mean composite leadership team scores were associated with a lower rate of burnout (r = −0.35, P = .03) and higher program and organization satisfaction (r = 0.67 and 0.74, respectively, both P < .001). Conclusions The behaviors of residency program leadership teams influence residents’ burnout and satisfaction. Additional studies are needed to determine if leadership training results in improved resident well-being and satisfaction.

AbstractTotal knee arthroplasty is a common and successful treatment modality for knee arthritis that is refractory to conservative management strategies. Over 600,000 arthroplasties are performed per year in the United States, and this number is expected to increase in the coming years. Unfortunately, 8% to 34% of patients experience chronic pain after having a total knee arthroplasty. These patients should undergo an appropriate work‐up by the orthopedic surgeon, but many times a surgical problem is not uncovered. In these situations, a thorough and specific plan for pain management should be sought. In this article, we outline the work‐up of a painful total knee arthroplasty. Then we provide a thorough review of interventional pain management strategies and highlight the pertinent literature. Lastly, we hypothesize future developments in the field that may provide better outcomes for patients suffering from painful total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a significant disruption in the care of pain from chronic and subacute conditions. The impact of this cessation of pain treatment may have unintended consequences of increased pain, reduced function, increased reliance on opioid medications, and potential increased morbidity, due to the systemic impact of untreated disease burden. This may include decreased mobility, reduction in overall health status, and increase of opioid use with the associated risks. METHODS: The article is the study of the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) COVID-19 task force to evaluate the policies set forth by federal, state, and local agencies to reduce or eliminate elective procedures for those patients with pain from spine, nerve, and joint disease. The impact of these decisions, which were needed to reduce the spread of the pandemic, led to a delay in care for many patients. We hence review an emergence plan to reinitiate this pain-related care. The goal is to outline a path to work with federal, state, and local authorities to combat the spread of the pandemic and minimize the deleterious impact of pain and suffering on our chronic pain patients. RESULTS: The article sets forth a strategy for the interventional pain centers to reemerge from the current pandemic and to set a course for future events. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an overwhelming challenge to interventional pain physicians and their patients. In addition to urgent actions needed for disease mitigation, the ASPN recommends a staged return to pain management professionals’ workflow.