Home >Newsletters >May 1998
 
ASA NEWSLETTER
 
 
May 1998
Volume 62
Number 5
 

Credentialing of New Pain Procedures or Physicians Performing New Procedures

Douglas G. Merrill, M.D., Chair
Committee on Pain Management




Author's Note: The ASA Committee on Pain Management has received a great number of requests from members of ASA regarding guidance in the areas of credentialing new physicians and new procedures in pain management. It is the opinion of the Committee on Pain Management that the best way for a department, hospital or physician group to accomplish this goal is to monitor outcomes. Until a cohesive, specialty-wide approach to outcomes measurements is in place, however, we consider the following recommendations our best advice in this area.

This document has been developed by the ASA Committee on Pain Management but has not been reviewed or approved as a practice parameter or policy statement by the ASA House of Delegates. Variances from the recommendations contained in this document may be acceptable based on the judgment of the responsible physician. The recommendations are designed to encourage quality patient care but cannot guarantee a specific outcome. These recommendations are subject to revision from time to time as warranted by the evolution of technology and practice.

I. Introduction

Very often physicians wish to expand their technical capabilities by learning and performing new procedures. As well, new procedures are developed and promulgated from time to time. As a result, program directors, department chairs, medical directors of institutions and organizations often request advice from the ASA Committee on Pain Management for management of such situations.

This document is the recommendation of the members of that committee and is intended only as information to be considered by members encountering such situations. It is not a guideline and certainly should not be construed as a standard of care.

II. Credentialing of New Procedures

When a physician wishes to engage in the performance of a new procedure* or when a new procedure is to be performed at an institution for the first time, the following steps should be considered:

  1. A review of literature should be undertaken to ascertain any scientific basis which may or may not exist for the procedure. Specifically, the published accounts of the procedure should be reviewed to be certain of any strictures which were placed on patient selection and treatment. As much as possible, these restrictions should be used in the employment of the new procedure.
  2. If available, a protocol should be created and submitted to an Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. The absence of an IRB at the hospital or outpatient center involved is not necessarily a real hurdle. Often IRBs are available to monitor protocols used outside their parent institution.
  3. Consents should be individually crafted which include risks specifically attendant to this new procedure. The consent should make it clear that this procedure is new and that the experience with it at this institution is not substantive.
  4. The procedure should be approved for use only as a portion of a treatment algorithm which portrays specific indications and alternatives to the use of the procedure. The protocol should be submitted and formally approved by the institution or department, and it should be used when the outcomes of the procedure are periodically reviewed by the department or institution.
  5. All new procedures should be used in the setting of a multidisciplinary approach to pain management. Decisions with regard to use of the procedure should be made after evaluation of other potential (noninvasive) alternatives and consideration of the patient's response to evaluations and therapies proffered by physical, occupational and behavioral therapists where appropriate.
  6. The outcomes of each patient who undergoes the procedure must be followed and reported to the institution or department responsible for its oversight. It is recommended that the evaluation of the patient's status be made using such tools as the SF-36 or other such health surveys. These evaluations should be conducted at specified intervals (e.g., one, three, six and 12 months), to allow a full understanding of any true value of the procedure.
  7. After a period of review of the safety and outcomes (cost, efficacy) of the procedure, the department or institution may choose to terminate the oversight process, continue it or stay the use of the procedure altogether.
  8. If the new procedure has any attendant risk of airway or hemodynamic compromise, then it must be performed only by physicians specifically trained in the management of such events.
III. Credentialing of Physicians Performing
Procedures New to Them
  1. All of the above recommendations regarding the credentialing of procedures are appropriate to the credentialing of physicians who are new to the institution or who have no substantive experience in a particular procedure's use.
  2. Additionally, it is recommended that whenever possible mentoring should be used as a primary means of credentialing a physician. This mentoring could (if necessary) include off-site apprenticeship of the physician to a practitioner who is experienced and active in the use of the technique. That practitioner should be chosen by the department or institution and have no vested interest in the practice of the apprentice. If possible, the physician being credentialed should perform the procedure several times under the tutelage of such a practitioner. The physician's apprenticeship should include a written report from the experienced practitioner to the department or institution which reviews the performance of the apprentice.
  3. The consents for this procedure should include a specific statement of the physician's inexperience.
  4. As noted above, the physician must provide evidence of capability in the management of any resuscitative measures which might be required in the event of a complication resulting from the performance of the new procedure.


*New procedure is defined as any procedure not included in the ASA Guidelines for the Management of Chronic Pain.


Douglas G. Merrill, M.D., is Director of Valley Analgesia Services, Valley Anesthesiology Consultants, Phoenix, Arizona.
E-mail the author.

 


return to top


 


FEATURES

Answering "The Cry" of Pain

ARTICLES


DEPARTMENTS


The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views, policies or actions of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

NL Archives

Information for Authors