Pain Fellowship Reviews

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Guys-

Just a FYI. Some programs that had prominent pain physicians as their PDs etc no longer have them. Notably some of these programs are: MD Anderson, Cornell, Cleveland Clinic, vanderbilt, Mayo (but not their PD).

So something to keep in mind when looking at old posts,etc.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Can anyone please comment on the quality of the following programs? Any info is appreciated, thanks!

Michigan
Mount Sinai
Albert Einstein
Baystate
UPMC
Wisconsin
 
Down south update:
Big changes that have not been completely fleshed out on this post in the southern region. The big pain state of Texas has been shaken up as Texas Tech - once the premier program in the US has been reduced to barely staying afloat. Lots of talk of the Tech program going all private practice as all the big names are gone or semi-retired.

MD Anderson - once a great program has lost its prominent pain director. Probably still good if you really like cancer pain.

UT Southwestern - probably the best program in the region now. Dr. Noe is a great program director and they have 10+ full time faculty with 3 growing sites (VA, Parkland and a private prac style site).

UTMB - Small program, probably keep their own as they may have a hard time attracting strong applicants with so many other big Texas programs.

University of Oklahoma - Dr. Mansour has stepped down but is still active. New PD is very friendly. Small program with only one fellow. Hours are excellent I hear.

Up North Update:
Cornell: tri-institute has lost its prominent PD. Still a solid program but losing PD is still a big hit.

BWH: sold program, procedure heavy - well suited for private practice

BID: still probably the best in the region

MGH: Solid academic program, no big changes that I know of.

Hopkins: Sexual harassment scandal still marring the program, still a decent program.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Interviewed at Cleveland..

Very organized day. Excellent academic curriculum, lot of procedures, friendly people, huge place, low cost of living! Cleveland city is not the greatest but not terrible for a year. The staff and fellows feel proud to be associated with the institution and Pain department.

Everything that I ask for in a fellowship program!
 
Interviewed at Cleveland..

Very organized day. Excellent academic curriculum, lot of procedures, friendly people, huge place, low cost of living! Cleveland city is not the greatest but not terrible for a year. The staff and fellows feel proud to be associated with the institution and Pain department.

Everything that I ask for in a fellowship program!



ccf is going through major changes according to fellows with new cheir and new PD fellows to cross cover PCA's , no home calls will be in house
big names are leaving leo kapural left already , rumors ex cheir is leaving and S Hicks is retiring
good side: fellows will cover regional pain and do more U/S blocks
 
Last edited:
ccf is going through major changes according to fellows with new cheir and new PD fellows to cross cover PCA's , no home calls will be in house
big names are leaving leo kapural left already , rumors ex cheir is leaving and S Hicks is retiring
good side: fellows will cover regional pain and do more U/S blocks

PD has been there for a while now, the new chair seemed very very nice! When I asked about pCA coverage they said fellows do not have that responsibility. Inhouse call is only during 2 weeks of regional/acute pain month but otherwise home calls.
 
Completed the fellow in the past five years.
Above average work load (clinical); fellows run the clinic.

Very strong faculty except one and the main negative aspect was the fellowship director who I heard changed last year. (if my information is correct) The new director Dr. Erdek is an amazing person and a true doctor's doctor; someone you would want to treat your parents. Just pubMed the faculty.

Would do it again even with the old director. The comfort level after finishing the fellowship was above average (comparing the number of procedure my friends did the same year in MGH, UCLA, Emory, MDA, BI ) found a job of my liking in a competitive west coast area and working with two of my friends. Needless to say, the name carries a lot of cloud when looking for jobs.


Good luck
 
Cornell: 5 fellows, great name, good program overall, good number of procedures, crazy surgeries going on in the hospitals, you spend time at 3 different places each with a different flavor - some months procedure heavy some months not, some fellows c/o scut, living situation is standard for nyc (horrible compared to everywhere else) you HAVE to live in manhattan per the PD .. the hospital aesthetic is also standard nyc in the same sense but who really cares.. fellows prepared for anything but preferred mt. sinai for nyc.. 7/10

Sinai: 5 fellows, program seemed more focused on happy fellows, built in moonlighting/late call a couple times per month, good number of procedures, nice people, didnt restrict where fellows lived but still the hospital and living is still in nyc... seems like less unpaid scut than cornell .. 8/10

UC Davis: ~6 fellows, Outstanding program overall. What can you say? They have great faculty, great facilities, and its in California. I think its up there with any of the other UC schools or top programs in the coutnry.. fellows get good procedures, good multidisciplinary rotations, they are well rounded and strong overall., people seem happy and nice, extremely competitive... 9/10

UT San Antonio: 6 fellows, Surprisingly good (I didnt know what to expect in SA). Very organized program and outpatient clinic. Residents and med students rotate throught the large, busy clinic. Leadership here is great combo of old big name and young progressive former fellow. I liked the city. Fellows got good jobs and texas that money goes a long way. Very interventional, good hours, good job placement, happy fellows.. 8/10 (only real ding being location) its not MD anderson, but MDA is not the kind of place i was looking for - this is a bit more mom and pops, but very university based also dont get me wrong...

Baystate: 3 fellows, good interventional program - 3 fellows and lots of volume so they seemed confident and well trained for bread and butter, not too sure how much SCS and pumps and out of the ordinary stuff going on here though, interview day seemed rushed and off the cuff, overall program looked like it wasnt as structured/stable as the other larger programs, but i wasnt concerned that i wouldnt get adequate training.. it was generally nice people, lots of interventions but mostly b and b, seemingly reasonable hours though we only talked to one fellow but he seemed normal and nice and happy .. 7/10

Northwestern: 4 fellows, beautiful hospital, amazing city, lots of interventional volume per fellow including SCS, large organized department with distinguished faculty .. but .. strange overall vibe.... fellows stated they were unhappy, it seemed like they got beat up pretty bad by the attendings verbally, it seemed like they didnt want to come to work and they wished they didnt do the fellowship, we talked to all of them and one was vocal and the others just kind of agreed ... everyday, one of the four fellows would have to be dedicated to the great job of answering/returning calls from patients all day in the clinic.. what? .. it was the sketchiest vibe of all my interviews but a great program from afar.. strange... 6.5/10

Pittsburgh: 8-9 fellows, good interventions including SCS, happy fellows, organized and structured program with distinguished faculty, good hours, multidisciplinary teaching with a good philosophy, fellows get good jobs, however in pittsburgh but thats cheap and easy to live.. 8/10

Brigham: 8 fellows, strong program, high volume interventions, hard work compared to other programs in terms of schedule/hours/personalities, but overall a great program as others have attested to .. 8.5/10

BID: 8 fellows, also as advertised by others.. great program, happy fellows, good interventions, overall 8.5/10

SUNy Upstate: 4 fellows, arrive at only interview (very early .. in may) day to find ~50 candidates, >20 being from within SUNY system.. then we are told they will make decisions and contact us either way within one week.. what?? that means that even if they accepted me, i would have to say no, i mean they only offer one interview day and its before any other programs in the cycle, i would not turn down everywhere else and accept an early spot at syracuse.. i think they people who end up there are mostly within the suny system and the other people are invited as fodder.. completely inappropriate and a waste of my time and money and i am still upset about this one... that being said it honestly seemed like a good program with good cadaver labs and facilities and nice knowledgable faculty..

PM me for specifics ;)
 
Last edited:
Any places still have spots open? PM me if you don't wanna post.
 
Now which Pain fellowships are most geared for the outpatient setting?
I am not a big fan of the OR but like procedures.
Not really too interested in putting in pumps and such.

Thanks

:cool:
 
Looking for updated opinions on the following programs:

VCU
Pitt
Penn
Jefferson
Hershey
Colorado
UMich
Temple (Falco)
Ohio State
UMDNJ (any of the 3)

Thanks
 
Wondering if any current or past fellows at UCSF could post a current review of the program or PM me.
Thanks!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
according to academic pain docs at my program, the best were

top tier: MGH (Rathmell, although only low-moderately interventional), UCLA (ferrante), BW (highly interventional), BID (moderately interventional), CCF (moderate-highly interventional), Mayo-Rochester, Wake (Rauck, interventional PP model)

2nd tier: UVA (although younger faculty as the experienced leadership has stepped away from the fellowship), stanford (mackey, but not interventional at all!), UCSD (Wallace), UC Davis (Fishman,moderately interventional)

3rd tier: Hopkins, Emory, Case Western, UTSW

programs that have dropped significantly (this is according to my chair)
Texas tech seems to have dropped off the map since some of their faculty left
MD anderson also seems to have dropped off the map since Burton/Brown left with only 3 full time pain staff?
UCSF: seems to be in transition still with primarily younger faculty since Palmer left. low volume/interventions according to a friend who finished there

any new input on Mayo AZ/Jax and UW/UTSW (which i hear is the best in texas now?)
 
Any updates on the Iowa Pain Fellowship program? Heard they are becoming more interventional now that rosenquist has left and fellows supposedly are happy there
 
Interviewing now, and contrary to rumors their numbers are higher than ever. Losing a department head, as in most places, does not correlate with less patients or procedures performed as they tend to deal more with politics and less with patients. And there are 8 full time attendings, not 3.

Recent attendings hired seem very procedure heavy. Fellows rotate one full week a month in the OR, average 4-6 verts, 2-3 neurolytic procedures (splachnic, sup. hypogastric, etc.) 1-2 pump stim trials/perm. that week plus bread and butter procedures. Other fellows either rotate through procedure suite in clinic, on the floor (very busy inpt service) or on the outpt services. Academics (which were a weakness in the past) have improved vastly over the last two years because of a new program director.
 
Last edited:
any thoughts on the UTSW program or michigan program?
 
I thought I would move this post to the fellowship review thread...As a current fellow my opinion maybe a bit biased but I have to say LLU one of the best kept secrets in the pain fellowship circles. Here are a couple reasons:


Program:
-Well respected medical school.

-4 Fellows usually (2 anesthesia and 2 PMR) have had other specialties in the past.

-Excellent combination of different aspects of pain. Spend time at main pain clinic 6 months, VA pain clinic 3 months, VA multidisciplinary rotation (radiology, neurology, addiction, palliative care etc) these are very easy months avg 30 hr/week or less with built in study time.

-Great hours. At main clinic Mon-Thurs 9-4 Fri 9-12 . Procedures Wed and Thurs AM. At VA 8-3 Mon-Fri.

-Minimal Inpatient stuff. Only cover chronic pain. No catheter management etc. This is covered by anesthesia residents. Only take call approx 8 weekends the whole year.

-Geared mostly toward PP pain. Many attendings also have part-time private practices and they are happy to share their experience on both sides of the fence. Not much research going on but willing to help if you are interested (that being said 2 of 4 fellows last year told academic jobs)

-Lots of bread and butter procedures but also doing stim, a handful of pumps both baclofen and opioid as well as Kyphoplasty, some disc and MILD procedures.

-Awesome moonlighting gig for anesthesia trained fellows.

Location/Misc:
-Beautiful weather Avg summer temps 80-mid 90s. Winter 60-70s.
-Reasonable cost of living compared to other parts of CA
-1 hour drive to the beach, 1-hours the ski resorts of Big Bear
-Close to Disneyland and other parks
-Very laid back
 
Sounds like there is some misinformation about MD Anderson This program has 8 full time faculty and a very big name will be coming on as chair this year (I won't spill the beans). After interviewing at Beth Israel Deaconess, Hopkins, Mayo MN, Mayo Jax, and OHSU, MDA is by far the most interventional. Their fellows do more vertebros/kyphos, stim placements, pumps and advanced procedures than any other program with which I am familiar. Dr. Bruel is also bringing more work with ultrasound into clinic. If you are mainly interested in bread and butter cases, this may not be the ideal program for you. If you are looking for pathology, high patient volume, and OR time, you should look into it.
Needless to say, this is where I'm really hoping to go but competition is steep. It's definitely the only program I'd be willing to move to TX for. The coordinator said they received ~130 applications this year. I believe they will be sending offers out in August. . . .

Thoughts on other programs:
Mayo MN - terrific program, medium workload, very friendly faculty, fellows spend a week in anatomy lab. Dr. Watson and Pingree are doing more work with ultrasound now. There is an amazing gym. Nearly everyone I met in Rochester was married +/- kids.

Hopkins - Big name but the program itself is kinda middle of the road - as described by a current fellow. They are big on neuromodulation but very minimal experience with pumps, virtually no experience with vertebro/kyphos. Schedule isn't too taxing. Probably great if you're interested in academics/research. There was at least one PMR and one Neurology candidate on my interview day.

Mayo Jax - only one fellow annually. There are 4 faculty members - two from PMR, one from anesth, one Neurologist. The fellow can kinda tailor his education. Neurosurgery does their permanent stim placements though. Not a ton of pumps. Really cool outpatient rehab setup. The PD is a PMR guy who is very down to earth. The chairman isn't so down to earth but is an interesting guy. There are 2 PAs which help with stuff like med refills.

OHSU - portland is a fun city. Friendly faculty. A solid program for bread and butter cases. Fellows may place around 10 stimulators during the year. Not a great program if you are interested in advanced procedures or academics.

BID - strong program, great reputation. Takes 8 fellows. Medium-low workload, medium on interventional/advanced procedures. Many opportunities for research, happy fellows. For what it's worth, they previously took candidates outside anesthesia, including a psychiatrist.

These are my experiences and opinions so far. There are a ton of great programs out there, and I believe applicants should trash any guidance based on "tiers" but rather make decisions based on info accrued from interviews.
 
Last edited:
First time I've been on this site in years, and it's rather interesting to get a little insight into the thought processes of modern applicants. I see that people are still trying to categorize programs into "tiers," which is a bit farcical given that no ranking mechanism or scheme exists. And to be quite truthful even if one were proposed the outcome would depend entirely on the a priori expectations of the applicant in question. That is to say if your goal is become the private practice block king of a greater metropolitan area then your interests would be rather disparate from those of an applicant desiring a long term, research intensive academic career. The not so subtle implication, therefore, is to be honest with yourself first and foremost. It would be a bit of a bonus If you can dispense with the duplicity and be honest with the programs to which you are applying as well.

When you evaluate and apply to specific programs keep your individual goals in mind, because the big names or fancy interventional approaches won't mean a lot if your poorly suited to the institutional paradigm in question. Stanford, for instance, is a phenomenal academic institution for applicants who are, or at the very least may, be going into academics. If, on the other hand, you really only want to go through the fellowship so you can start poking people with sharp objects in order to generate CPT codes then you'd most likely end up miserable sitting through countless lectures on the erudite esoterica de jur. Similarly, don't perseverate on the procedure number or intensity of a given program's interventional bent, especially if you have decent hands and three dimensional thought processing. Anything in which your feel genuinely undertrained and want to do, or alternatively need to be able to do in order to obtain the job of your dreams, can be learned at a course. Most of the time for free. Medtronic or Boston Scientific or Company X will quite happily send you to a delightful weekend course, all expenses paid, with nothing more than a phone call on your part. Learning when/where/why to inject on the other hand, and perhaps even more importantly when/where/why not to inject, in the setting of comorbidities X, Y and Z, is far more challenging to achieve solo post training, and thus quite a bit more important to learn during it.

Take it as a bit of advice from an old, fat, graying acadamic attending who not too surprisingly seems to get rather less intelligent each day treating pain patients, finding that for every additional bit of insight I achieve, two questions to which I do not have answers appear ... exponential stupidity if you like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
First time I've been on this site in years, and it's rather interesting to get a little insight into the thought processes of modern applicants. I see that people are still trying to categorize programs into "tiers," which is a bit farcical given that no ranking mechanism or scheme exists. And to be quite truthful even if one were proposed the outcome would depend entirely on the a priori expectations of the applicant in question. That is to say if your goal is become the private practice block king of a greater metropolitan area then your interests would be rather disparate from those of an applicant desiring a long term, research intensive academic career. The not so subtle implication, therefore, is to be honest with yourself first and foremost. It would be a bit of a bonus If you can dispense with the duplicity and be honest with the programs to which you are applying as well.

When you evaluate and apply to specific programs keep your individual goals in mind, because the big names or fancy interventional approaches won't mean a lot if your poorly suited to the institutional paradigm in question. Stanford, for instance, is a phenomenal academic institution for applicants who are, or at the very least may, be going into academics. If, on the other hand, you really only want to go through the fellowship so you can start poking people with sharp objects in order to generate CPT codes then you'd most likely end up miserable sitting through countless lectures on the erudite esoterica de jur. Similarly, don't perseverate on the procedure number or intensity of a given program's interventional bent, especially if you have decent hands and three dimensional thought processing. Anything in which your feel genuinely undertrained and want to do, or alternatively need to be able to do in order to obtain the job of your dreams, can be learned at a course. Most of the time for free. Medtronic or Boston Scientific or Company X will quite happily send you to a delightful weekend course, all expenses paid, with nothing more than a phone call on your part. Learning when/where/why to inject on the other hand, and perhaps even more importantly when/where/why not to inject, in the setting of comorbidities X, Y and Z, is far more challenging to achieve solo post training, and thus quite a bit more important to learn during it.

Take it as a bit of advice from an old, fat, graying acadamic attending who not too surprisingly seems to get rather less intelligent each day treating pain patients, finding that for every additional bit of insight I achieve, two questions to which I do not have answers appear ... exponential stupidity if you like.

65.gif
 
First time I've been on this site in years, and it's rather interesting to get a little insight into the thought processes of modern applicants. I see that people are still trying to categorize programs into "tiers," which is a bit farcical given that no ranking mechanism or scheme exists. And to be quite truthful even if one were proposed the outcome would depend entirely on the a priori expectations of the applicant in question. That is to say if your goal is become the private practice block king of a greater metropolitan area then your interests would be rather disparate from those of an applicant desiring a long term, research intensive academic career. The not so subtle implication, therefore, is to be honest with yourself first and foremost. It would be a bit of a bonus If you can dispense with the duplicity and be honest with the programs to which you are applying as well.

When you evaluate and apply to specific programs keep your individual goals in mind, because the big names or fancy interventional approaches won't mean a lot if your poorly suited to the institutional paradigm in question. Stanford, for instance, is a phenomenal academic institution for applicants who are, or at the very least may, be going into academics. If, on the other hand, you really only want to go through the fellowship so you can start poking people with sharp objects in order to generate CPT codes then you'd most likely end up miserable sitting through countless lectures on the erudite esoterica de jur. Similarly, don't perseverate on the procedure number or intensity of a given program's interventional bent, especially if you have decent hands and three dimensional thought processing. Anything in which your feel genuinely undertrained and want to do, or alternatively need to be able to do in order to obtain the job of your dreams, can be learned at a course. Most of the time for free. Medtronic or Boston Scientific or Company X will quite happily send you to a delightful weekend course, all expenses paid, with nothing more than a phone call on your part. Learning when/where/why to inject on the other hand, and perhaps even more importantly when/where/why not to inject, in the setting of comorbidities X, Y and Z, is far more challenging to achieve solo post training, and thus quite a bit more important to learn during it.

Take it as a bit of advice from an old, fat, graying acadamic attending who not too surprisingly seems to get rather less intelligent each day treating pain patients, finding that for every additional bit of insight I achieve, two questions to which I do not have answers appear ... exponential stupidity if you like.

:bow:
 
If you had read my post closely, I prefaced what I wrote by "according to academic pain physicians". Thus, I did not categorize programs myself, I was simply relaying what was expressed to me, and sharing with others to promote discussion. I trust the opinions of established academic pain physicians, as they have seen pain medicine/programs evolve over the years. Needless to say, I think it's pretty obvious every program differs with regards to intervention/overall philosophy but I don't think stratifying programs into tiers is out of the question. I think it's implied that a program that is categorized as top tier is strong when it comes to leadership, intervention, clinical volume, research, faculty, publications, etc. or some combination of those....so yes, a ranking mechanism does exist. I dont think anyone would argue that certain programs receive way more applications than others, and this is because the former is perceived as top tier or something close. your judgemental response seemed like you were somewhat threatened by these tiers, maybe because you did your fellowship somewhere not on this list. you think that the "modern" applicant shouldn't "perseverate" on interventional training but why wouldn't someone want to go somewhere where they can learn the procedure without having to go to an external course if the opportunity was available.

First time I've been on this site in years, and it's rather interesting to get a little insight into the thought processes of modern applicants. I see that people are still trying to categorize programs into "tiers," which is a bit farcical given that no ranking mechanism or scheme exists. And to be quite truthful even if one were proposed the outcome would depend entirely on the a priori expectations of the applicant in question. That is to say if your goal is become the private practice block king of a greater metropolitan area then your interests would be rather disparate from those of an applicant desiring a long term, research intensive academic career. The not so subtle implication, therefore, is to be honest with yourself first and foremost. It would be a bit of a bonus If you can dispense with the duplicity and be honest with the programs to which you are applying as well.

When you evaluate and apply to specific programs keep your individual goals in mind, because the big names or fancy interventional approaches won't mean a lot if your poorly suited to the institutional paradigm in question. Stanford, for instance, is a phenomenal academic institution for applicants who are, or at the very least may, be going into academics. If, on the other hand, you really only want to go through the fellowship so you can start poking people with sharp objects in order to generate CPT codes then you'd most likely end up miserable sitting through countless lectures on the erudite esoterica de jur. Similarly, don't perseverate on the procedure number or intensity of a given program's interventional bent, especially if you have decent hands and three dimensional thought processing. Anything in which your feel genuinely undertrained and want to do, or alternatively need to be able to do in order to obtain the job of your dreams, can be learned at a course. Most of the time for free. Medtronic or Boston Scientific or Company X will quite happily send you to a delightful weekend course, all expenses paid, with nothing more than a phone call on your part. Learning when/where/why to inject on the other hand, and perhaps even more importantly when/where/why not to inject, in the setting of comorbidities X, Y and Z, is far more challenging to achieve solo post training, and thus quite a bit more important to learn during it.

Take it as a bit of advice from an old, fat, graying acadamic attending who not too surprisingly seems to get rather less intelligent each day treating pain patients, finding that for every additional bit of insight I achieve, two questions to which I do not have answers appear ... exponential stupidity if you like.
 
and put down the thesaurus...you're not that smart

First time I've been on this site in years, and it's rather interesting to get a little insight into the thought processes of modern applicants. I see that people are still trying to categorize programs into "tiers," which is a bit farcical given that no ranking mechanism or scheme exists. And to be quite truthful even if one were proposed the outcome would depend entirely on the a priori expectations of the applicant in question. That is to say if your goal is become the private practice block king of a greater metropolitan area then your interests would be rather disparate from those of an applicant desiring a long term, research intensive academic career. The not so subtle implication, therefore, is to be honest with yourself first and foremost. It would be a bit of a bonus If you can dispense with the duplicity and be honest with the programs to which you are applying as well.

When you evaluate and apply to specific programs keep your individual goals in mind, because the big names or fancy interventional approaches won't mean a lot if your poorly suited to the institutional paradigm in question. Stanford, for instance, is a phenomenal academic institution for applicants who are, or at the very least may, be going into academics. If, on the other hand, you really only want to go through the fellowship so you can start poking people with sharp objects in order to generate CPT codes then you'd most likely end up miserable sitting through countless lectures on the erudite esoterica de jur. Similarly, don't perseverate on the procedure number or intensity of a given program's interventional bent, especially if you have decent hands and three dimensional thought processing. Anything in which your feel genuinely undertrained and want to do, or alternatively need to be able to do in order to obtain the job of your dreams, can be learned at a course. Most of the time for free. Medtronic or Boston Scientific or Company X will quite happily send you to a delightful weekend course, all expenses paid, with nothing more than a phone call on your part. Learning when/where/why to inject on the other hand, and perhaps even more importantly when/where/why not to inject, in the setting of comorbidities X, Y and Z, is far more challenging to achieve solo post training, and thus quite a bit more important to learn during it.

Take it as a bit of advice from an old, fat, graying acadamic attending who not too surprisingly seems to get rather less intelligent each day treating pain patients, finding that for every additional bit of insight I achieve, two questions to which I do not have answers appear ... exponential stupidity if you like.
 
If you had read my post closely, I prefaced what I wrote by "according to academic pain physicians". Thus, I did not categorize programs myself, I was simply relaying what was expressed to me, and sharing with others to promote discussion. I trust the opinions of established academic pain physicians, as they have seen pain medicine/programs evolve over the years. Needless to say, I think it's pretty obvious every program differs with regards to intervention/overall philosophy but I don't think stratifying programs into tiers is out of the question. I think it's implied that a program that is categorized as top tier is strong when it comes to leadership, intervention, clinical volume, research, faculty, publications, etc. or some combination of those....so yes, a ranking mechanism does exist. I dont think anyone would argue that certain programs receive way more applications than others, and this is because the former is perceived as top tier or something close. your judgemental response seemed like you were somewhat threatened by these tiers, maybe because you did your fellowship somewhere not on this list. you think that the "modern" applicant shouldn't "perseverate" on interventional training but why wouldn't someone want to go somewhere where they can learn the procedure without having to go to an external course if the opportunity was available.


I beg your pardon? Did I mention you specifically by name? Were you quoted in my previous post? Because it was directed at an overall trend rather than a particular individual's perception. You're clearly not the first, and certainly won't be the last, person to suggest that programmatic ranking is a viable endeavor and I simply wanted to propose that such inclinations were, perhaps, misguided.

As my opinion quite justifiably carries little to no weight, I encourage all interested parties to bypass the perfunctory message board assumptions and simply inquire within at the source. Walk up to Jim Rathmell, Sean Mackey, Richard Rosenquist, Michael Ferrante, et al, at any ASRA/AAPM meeting, introduce yourself as an interested party, and ask for their opinion. That's what I did during my residency (Period of Indentured Servitude, Scholastic, or P.I.S.S., as I not too fondly recall), and their consistent responses formed the basis for my current opinion. You don't even have to search them out, the resident section committee for ASRA sets up a happy hour at each meeting specifically to provide trainees with such opportunities, adult beverages included free of charge. Perhaps you'll receive a discordant opinion, but I seriously doubt it.

In terms of interventional training and its relative importance, I would simply suggest that 365 days is a grossly inadequate length of time over which to become facile with the practice of pain medicine. Overemphasis on any one component, be it behavioral, pharmacological, interventional or physical, detracts from the remaining facets of practice. That is, programs that are inherently perceived as “interventional” cannot, by virtue of timeframe limitations, be providing adequate instruction in the remaining portions of the discipline. What I'd recommend to any applicant is to locate the program that best exemplifies a balanced approach, because no matter what educational algorithm is implemented you're going to need to pursue additional learning independently when you leave. That's why the pantheons of the academic pain world are striving for a separate pain residency program; they just have to find a way to fund it.

And lastly, if my method of communication offends you blame it on my British upbringing, because the manner in which I speak/type is a direct reflection on the vernacular employed during my youth, no thesaurus required.

Cheers
 
I beg your pardon? Did I mention you specifically by name? Were you quoted in my previous post? Because it was directed at an overall trend rather than a particular individual's perception. You're clearly not the first, and certainly won't be the last, person to suggest that programmatic ranking is a viable endeavor and I simply wanted to propose that such inclinations were, perhaps, misguided.

As my opinion quite justifiably carries little to no weight, I encourage all interested parties to bypass the perfunctory message board assumptions and simply inquire within at the source. Walk up to Jim Rathmell, Sean Mackey, Richard Rosenquist, Michael Ferrante, et al, at any ASRA/AAPM meeting, introduce yourself as an interested party, and ask for their opinion. That's what I did during my residency (Period of Indentured Servitude, Scholastic, or P.I.S.S., as I not too fondly recall), and their consistent responses formed the basis for my current opinion. You don't even have to search them out, the resident section committee for ASRA sets up a happy hour at each meeting specifically to provide trainees with such opportunities, adult beverages included free of charge. Perhaps you'll receive a discordant opinion, but I seriously doubt it.

In terms of interventional training and its relative importance, I would simply suggest that 365 days is a grossly inadequate length of time over which to become facile with the practice of pain medicine. Overemphasis on any one component, be it behavioral, pharmacological, interventional or physical, detracts from the remaining facets of practice. That is, programs that are inherently perceived as “interventional” cannot, by virtue of timeframe limitations, be providing adequate instruction in the remaining portions of the discipline. What I'd recommend to any applicant is to locate the program that best exemplifies a balanced approach, because no matter what educational algorithm is implemented you're going to need to pursue additional learning independently when you leave. That's why the pantheons of the academic pain world are striving for a separate pain residency program; they just have to find a way to fund it.

And lastly, if my method of communication offends you blame it on my British upbringing, because the manner in which I speak/type is a direct reflection on the vernacular employed during my youth, no thesaurus required.

Cheers

Initially after reading your posts, I thought your posts were a bit excessive and imposing, but I must admit they were very worthwhile to read. And your style of writing is definitely thorough and entertaining!
 
maybe it's just me and my american upbringing, but when you title your post "interesting read", and use words like "rather interesting", "farcical/duplicity", you come off sounding like a jerk, even though you may not be. and I too, did have discussions with 2 of the 4 academic pain physicians you listed above (and more). They helped to shape my view of pain programs and if you ask them their opinion of a program, they'll likely say excellent,very good, average, below average, etc.) this isn't really that much different from putting them into tiers. anyways, i don't have a problem with the content of your post, I rather agree with most of it. However, the tone is somewhat derogatory. Just saying...
 
Wanted to talk about a program that I just interviewed at and was pleasantly surprised and impressed with. In my opinion, Case is quite a diamond that has yet to be discovered and here is why: The Chair is well known and well liked in the Pain community, Dr. Hayek. The program has many many procedures on a daily basis with only currently three fellows with a rumor of applying for additional spots in the near future from the ACGME. There is no shortage of ITP or SCS as well as MILD etc. Additionally, there is a strong academic component with scheduled lectures for three hours on Mondays, which is different than the website indicating daily lectures in the morning (this is a positive because no longer do fellows have to drive to two places in a day ie. lecture then their site). There are ample opportunities to do bread and butter cases with private practice settings upwards of 40-50/day. The program also allows internal moonlighting for extra cash if needed and even this is supervising an anesthetist. The city may be too cold for some, but Cleveland offers a tremendous amount of culture and arts. If you are a sports fan, there are three major teams in the city (albeit not great contenders), but an opportunity to be at a game. Great program that really should be considered for those future applicants!
 
Anyone have an updated review or opinion about texas tech pain fellowship. It is still actively going I know that and Miles Day is there and Racz is there 1 week per month. I was hoping to get some better info on procedure numbers, work hours/call schedule, pros and cons of program, and competitiveness with securing a good job after compared to other big name pain fellowships. Also maybe comment on living in lubbock. Thanks
 
when is the last date for 2013 application?
 
We could use a resident who would like to rotate with us in June 2012 since there won't be a resident that month. Apply thru the Loma Linda GME office. This would be a great opportunity to make a great impression and be offered a spot in this program. Talking with fellows from other programs I'm convinced that this is an excellent program since we do many bread and butter procedures as well as lots of OR cases (MILD, discograms, kyphoplasty, SCS and PNS trials and implants) See pic of a discogram I did recently (prior to contrast injection). See the review below for more comments on this program.




I thought I would move this post to the fellowship review thread...As a current fellow my opinion maybe a bit biased but I have to say LLU one of the best kept secrets in the pain fellowship circles. Here are a couple reasons:


Program:
-Well respected medical school.

-4 Fellows usually (2 anesthesia and 2 PMR) have had other specialties in the past.

-Excellent combination of different aspects of pain. Spend time at main pain clinic 6 months, VA pain clinic 3 months, VA multidisciplinary rotation (radiology, neurology, addiction, palliative care etc) these are very easy months avg 30 hr/week or less with built in study time.

-Great hours. At main clinic Mon-Thurs 9-4 Fri 9-12 . Procedures Wed and Thurs AM. At VA 8-3 Mon-Fri.

-Minimal Inpatient stuff. Only cover chronic pain. No catheter management etc. This is covered by anesthesia residents. Only take call approx 8 weekends the whole year.

-Geared mostly toward PP pain. Many attendings also have part-time private practices and they are happy to share their experience on both sides of the fence. Not much research going on but willing to help if you are interested (that being said 2 of 4 fellows last year told academic jobs)

-Lots of bread and butter procedures but also doing stim, a handful of pumps both baclofen and opioid as well as Kyphoplasty, some disc and MILD procedures.

-Awesome moonlighting gig for anesthesia trained fellows.

Location/Misc:
-Beautiful weather Avg summer temps 80-mid 90s. Winter 60-70s.
-Reasonable cost of living compared to other parts of CA
-1 hour drive to the beach, 1-hours the ski resorts of Big Bear
-Close to Disneyland and other parks
-Very laid back
 

Attachments

  • discogram.jpg
    46 KB · Views: 196
I'm a CA-1 in Anesthesiology and I have been getting very different answers about when applications are sent out for pain fellowships since programs admit on a rolling basis. Do we send our applications out at the end of CA-1, CA-2, or another time? A clear answer would be great. I tried to do a search, but no luck.
 
Apply towards the end of your PGY-3 year (such as Feb) and interview early in your senior year (PGY-4)
 
I'm a CA-1 in Anesthesiology and I have been getting very different answers about when applications are sent out for pain fellowships since programs admit on a rolling basis. Do we send our applications out at the end of CA-1, CA-2, or another time? A clear answer would be great. I tried to do a search, but no luck.

Apply between January and April of CA-2 year. Some programs fill before August and some on or after August 1st. Ask around and keep this in mind when you apply.
 
Does anybody know of any openings still for the 2013-2014 year?
 
I've been an anesthesiologist in CA for close to 15 years but have recently taken an interest in pain management and am thinking of relocating back east (where I'm from) to pursue a pain fellowship.
The question I ponder is should I go for the best interventional fellowship that I can get into irrespective of location or should I put my efforts into pursuing a fellowship that is close to where I would eventually like to relocate (Virginia/Carolina area).
Any thoughts that any of you have would be greatly appreciated.
As well, any thoughts/comments on Duke's fellowship?

Thanks much.

Bailey
 
I'd recommend applying broadly (east coast/carolinas) in addition to other places as well. it's so competitive already and I would imagine even tougher for someone who has been out of training for some time.
 
I'm a CA-2 resident, getting ready to start the fellowship application process and was wondering if anyone had any up to date info on the Texas programs. I'm particularly interested in Texas Tech,UTSW and MD Anderson. I'm looking for a program that's highly interventional but not malignant. I guess I'm open to the west coast programs as well but would rather be in Texas. Any info would be much appreciated. Thanks!! :)
 
Any one have comments or updates regarding these programs?

I have heard that the population you treat at JHU leaves much to be desired.

any one know if Vandy has taken a PM&R candidate in the past?


thanks
 
Any one have comments or updates regarding these programs?

I have heard that the population you treat at JHU leaves much to be desired.

any one know if Vandy has taken a PM&R candidate in the past?


thanks

Vandy's new Pain Chief is Marc Huntoon, so maybe precedent is meaningless.
 
I've been in practice for over 20 years. I do Acute pain with U/S and have performerd over 30,000 nerve blocks in my career. I am thinking of doing a Pain Fellowship in 2-3 years at a location where procedures and more procedures are performed. My goal is to do it all after that 1 year fellowship including stimulators and Kyphos.

I've heard Texas Tech is pretty good. Any other program which can match the VOLUME of procedures across the board? I don't mind 12 hour days as that is how you get good at blocks/implants/procedures.

Finally, If I don't need the Fellowship salary can I apply at anytime of the year? I don't need the salary but I would want formal credit for the fellowship for Board Certification in Pain.

Feel free to PM me or post your replies here.
 
Cleveland clinic, Texas tech, md Anderson, Brigham, wake forest, Hopkins, mayo Rochester
 
Cedars-Sinai - exceptionally high procedure volume, established faculty (Rosner), top-notch facility, great location (it's in LA/Beverly Hills), world-renowned institution reputation ("Hospital of the Stars", research, great connections). Fellows seemed very happy and close to faculty. They also do some OR anesthesia (to not lose their skills) and get paid for it!
 
I graduated pain fellowship at UIHC last year. The program was so painful, focusing on medication/ opioid management. There were only a few full-time staff. One of them was being interventional but he did lots of crazy, out of ordinary injections. Pain fellows would need to cover acute pain calls but all peripheral nerve/ epidural catheters were performed by regional fellows and residents. Acute pain call was nonsense and overwhelmed. The hospital system was very poor. Got lots of nonsense phone calls from nurses during the night. Inpatient consults were more related to psych/opioid-related issues. Pain Director was running only acute pain but not working in clinic. There was a lack of support from anesthesia department. None of staff or fellows were happy.
 
Last edited:
Hi, I am PM&R resident from India. I want to apply for non-accredited PAIN MEDICINE fellowship (1 year) in US. Could anyone list, centres offering non-accredited fellowships in order of interventional procedures done and ease of entry for IMG?
 
Any information about NJ fellowships, specifically JFK medical center? thanks
 
Top