Home     |    Contact ASA     |     Join ASA!    |     Members Only     |    Retail Store   |    Advertising Information
 
ASA NEWSLETTER
 
 
March 1999
Volume 63
Number 3
   
Preliminary Results of the Committee on Pain Management Survey

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


In an ongoing effort of ASA to assess the needs and interests of its membership, the Committee on Pain Management created a questionnaire that was intended to elucidate the membership's level of interest and activity regarding pain management. It was mailed in the May 1998 issue of the NEWSLETTER.

As might be predicted by this relatively "quiet" and low cost approach to such an assessment, return rate was low. A total of 35,406 NEWSLETTER issues were mailed, including an international circulation of 2,200 and 375 sent to nonphysicians. We received a total of 219 replies. This represents a return rate of .06 percent of the physician recipients. Nonetheless, here are the results (numbers are a percent of the total answers for the question unless otherwise noted):

1.In answer to how many clinical hours are worked per week:

a. 0-20 2.7%
b. 21-30 1.3
c. 31-40 7.3
d. 41-50 28
e. 51 or more 61

2.What percentage of that time is spent in pain management which is not postoperative?

a. 0 12%
b. 1-25 35
c. 26-50 16
d. 51-75 8
e. 76-100 29

3.In answer to the question as to whether or not pain management was a valuable service which anesthesiologists provide patients:

a. yes 97.5%
b. no 0.5
c. no opinion 1.8

4.The question regarding activity offered the choices of weekly, monthly or rarely. Often the respondents would write in that they did not mark one because they "never" did it. I think that would be an acceptable analysis of any nonresponse and so is noted as such below:

Procedure weekly monthly rarely never
Lumbar epidural steroid 73% 7% 14% 6%
Cervical/thoracic epidural steroid 50 16 28 6
Stellate block 33 33 29 4
Lumbar sympatholytic block 25 32 39 4
Facet joint blocks 35 17 36 12
Fluoroscopy 47 10 33 10
Epidural stimulators 3 18 57 22
Spinal/epidural pumps 3 17 67 13
Selective nerve root blocks 25 25 33 17

5.In response to the question as to whether ASA should devote more resources to pain management issues and education:

a. yes 74%
b. no 13
c. no opinion 14

6.This question asked for a ranking (of 1-8) of the importance of the following issues in pain management. Here were the point breakdowns (lowest point total is considered most important):

Rank Point Total
1. Validation of treatment regimens 475
2. Outcome measurement techniques 537
3. Recognition of pain management as a specialty by insurers 704
4. Credentialing of physicians 802
5. CPT code revision 887
6. Physician fraud and overtreatment 957
7. Definition of pain subspecialty certification 975
8. Nurse anesthetists involvement in pain management 1,373

Item number eight may be a little misleading, as the choice of the nurse anesthetist was very often associated with extremely negative conclusions. In other words, many respondents placed it last as they did not want the concept even to be considered.

7.The responses to the question of whether or not the responding physician had achieved American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) certification with Added Qualifications in Pain Management were:

a. yes 33%
b. no 67%

8.Percentage of respondents belonging to other specialty societies:

American Society of Regional Anesthesia 58%
American Pain Society 30
American Academy of Pain Medicine 29
International Association for the Study of Pain 29
Invasive Spinal Instrumentation Society 15
(Other) 12

I believe the low return rate reflects either general apathy or failure to see the questionnaire, rather than disinterest in this topic. The reason for this "optimism" is that not one of the six partners in my own pain management practice returned a questionnaire! I know their interest is quite high.

Such a low return suggests a need for alternative methods for performing such a survey. The Committee on Pain Management is considering the many options in this regard. Alternatives include Internet-based techniques, random sampling mailings, "exit" sampling at meetings and others. Most often, there is significant expense associated with these, but we feel the information gathered to be of great significance to ASA.

I believe the following information was gained from this survey:

  1. It is apparent that the practice of pain management outside the operating room is one which is still considered an important aspect of the practice of anesthesiologists who do not necessarily consider themselves to be "subspecialists" in the field.
  2. The majority of practitioners consider ASA to be a particularly important body for the promulgation of good pain management practice and in the representation of those who practice it.
  3. The answers to the various questions indicate that most of the respondents work in this area less than 25 percent of the time and perform primarily what would be considered by most as straightforward techniques (epidural steroid injections, stellate blocks, etc.). Nonetheless, nearly half of the respondents use fluoroscopy, presumably for placement of epidural injections. This is notably different from a poll of attendees at an ASRA meeting last May that indicated that the great majority of anesthesiologists do not do so.
  4. Many respondents emphasized their desire for ASA to devote more resources to pain management issues and education with specific comments regarding: a) need for greater emphasis in this area at the ASA Annual Meeting with hands-on workshops, b) development of an ASA program to help practitioners study their own outcomes, c) an ASA statement or position paper on the ethical practice of pain management, d) many concerns about what the ASA could do about fraud and abuse in this area, and e) a call for ASA to sponsor more education in palliative care.
  5. The ranking of importance of issues in question 6 was gratifying to the members of the Committee on Pain Management who have been working on the creation of a Society-sponsored database of outcomes in pain management.
    Interest in the problems associated with coding issues and the recognition of the practice of pain management by payers and health agencies mirrors a joint effort in these areas on the part of the committees on Economics and Pain Management and the staff of the ASA Washington Office.
    Moreover, the poll results also reflected the subject of the majority of the mail that the committee receives annually from members of the Society. These letters ask for advice and help with regard to what they consider to be overly aggressive and fraudulent care provided by some anesthesiologist pain management specialists in their own communities.
  6. A concern was often raised that the ABA examinations for Added Qualifications in Pain Management were held too infrequently (annually).
  7. A random sample of other comments follows:
    • The more pain management can be made into an objectively, rather than subjectively measured service, the better it would be.
    • Formulation of acute and chronic pain control pathways with studies of efficacy and cost outcomes is needed.
    • "... Pain medicine these days is word of mouth medicine with no scientific support or ...validation... I feel as though I have become a chiropractor."
    •  
    • Fellowship training should be extended and more surgical and radiologic training added.
    • Accreditation of pain clinics by the Commission for the Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities is a threat to us as it puts rehab medicine in charge of pain medicine.
    • There is a need for one to two week mini-residencies for practicing pain doctors.
    • Help is needed with the Drug Enforcement Administration and state agencies regarding opioids for chronic nonmalignant pain.
    • Pediatric pain issues need to be emphasized more at the meetings.
    • Physician fraud and overtreatment are a huge problem; there is rampant fraud and "upcoding" by some individuals, which is hurting everybody.
    • There should be acceptance of alternative medicine for chronic pain.
    • We need help with Medicare guidelines.
    • Anesthesiologists need to do a better job with suffering and not just practice technical medicine.
We appreciate the time and thought used by those who responded to the questionnaire. We hope to make use of this information in promulgating the education and practice of pain management within our Society.


Douglas G. Merrill, M.D., is Director of Valley Analgesia Services, Valley Anesthesiology Consultants, Phoenix, Arizona.



return to top


 


FEATURES

Checking the Pulse of Cardiovascular Anesthesia Innovationst

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