Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Procedural education for cancer-related pain in Pain Medicine fellowships: a national program survey
  1. Alex Woodrow1,
  2. Masaru Teramoto2,
  3. Mrinal Thapliyal1 and
  4. Sandy Christiansen1
  1. 1Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
  2. 2Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Utah Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sandy Christiansen, Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland CH15P, Oregon, USA; chrissan{at}ohsu.edu

Abstract

Introduction Cancer-related pain is ubiquitous. Targeted procedural interventions may be an important and underutilized method for improving cancer-related pain and quality of life. The goal of this study was to determine the baseline educational experience and perceived post-graduation comfort of Pain Medicine fellows in performing procedures that can be used for cancer-related pain.

Methods Using Qualtrics, a 16-question survey was distributed to graduating fellows at accredited Pain Medicine Fellowship programs in the USA in June 2022. The fellows’ experience and comfort level performing eight procedures was analyzed using summary descriptive statistics and contingency table analysis with statistical significance determined by Pearson’s χ2 test.

Results Survey respondents represented 30% of fellows among 44% of Pain Medicine programs during the 2021–2022 academic year. The majority of respondents reported no experience performing 7 of the 8 procedures for cancer-related pain (56.1%–90.6%). Graduating fellows reported overall comfort performing sympathetic neurolysis (65.7%), spinal cord stimulator trials (85.7%) and implantations (66.0%), but not intrathecal pump trials (36.9%) and implantations (31.3%), peripheral nerve stimulator implantations (41.7%), vertebral augmentations (31.3%), and vertebral body radiofrequency ablations (16.7%).

Conclusions Experience performing 10 or more of the surveyed procedures, personal interest in treating cancer-related pain, and attendance of cancer-related pain lectures were found to significantly increase comfortability in performing cancer-related pain procedures post graduation, whereas cadaver-based learning did not. This study highlights the need for more robust procedural education for cancer-related pain and identifies procedural experience in non-cancer patients and lectures on cancer-related pain as ways to bridge this educational gap.

  • EDUCATION
  • Cancer Pain
  • Pain Management

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Not applicable.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Not applicable.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors SC designed the study, distributed the survey, collected the data, wrote the manuscript, prepared the manuscript for submission and is the guarantor for the study. AW designed the study, wrote the manuscript, and prepared the manuscript for submission. MTeramoto designed the study, analyzed the data, wrote the manuscript, and prepared the manuscript for submission. MThapliyal collected the data, wrote the manuscript, and prepared the manuscript for submission.

  • Funding This research received grant funding for survey incentive gift cards from the Pacific Spine and Pain Society.

  • Competing interests SC serves on the Executive Committee for the Pacific Spine and Pain Society. This relationship has been reviewed and managed by Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU). AW, MTeramoto, and MThapliyal do not have any competing interest to disclose.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.