PM R Sponsered Pain Fellowships

[psych psych]

Hi,

I had some quick questions

I keep hearing rumors that half the PM R Sponsered Pain Fellowships will be shut down in the near future.

1)i was wondering how soon will they be shut down? 1yr from now, 5 years?

2)and what is the main reason for all this

3)and are any new ones going to come up to replace them?

thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[axm397]

There have been a lot of threads on this topic so you should do a search

but basically - no one is "shutting down" PMR based pain fellowships. You are probably referring to the new ACGME requirements for ACGME accredited pain fellowships (there are plenty that are not accredited) which limits each institution to one fellowship program - supposed to be multidisciplinary PM&R, psych, neuro, and anesthesia.

for more info: http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/downloads/RRC_progReq/sh_multiPainPR707_TCC.pdf

So there will be no "real" distinction btwn PM&R sponsored and anesthesia sponsored fellowships - although in reality the traditionally PM&R based fellowships may indeed become non-accredited if it cannot fulfill the ACGME requirements.

That's the short answer to a complicated situation.

 

[Disciple]

Hi,

I had some quick questions

I keep hearing rumors that half the PM R Sponsered Pain Fellowships will be shut down in the near future.

1)i was wondering how soon will they be shut down? 1yr from now, 5 years?

2)and what is the main reason for all this

3)and are any new ones going to come up to replace them?

thanks

Not shut down, but withdrawing from accredited status in approximately 8 months. I suppose the rest could hang on for a few more years until their review cycle with the RRC comes up, then get put on probation, then lose accreditation.

Why this is not alarming to the PM&R world, I have no idea.

So, I guess we'll truly be able to call them Spine and Musculoskeletal fellowships now without anyone getting bent out of shape over the semantics.

 

[mehul_25]

It is sad that there is not more outrage over this, this issue seems to be sliding under the radar to some extent. Why arent more pm&r fellowships interested in maintaining or acquiring accreditation. I can think of several pmr&r residency programs currently at institutions that do not have anesthesia pain fellowships. I guess many pm&r applicants will continue their exodus to anesthesia fellowships in the years to come.

 

[lobelsteve]

The problem will be the quality of the training will fall off based on the new PIF. While they will be getting the ACGME stamp of approval, tey will be missing out on the many months of training it takes to become competent interventionally. Sittign around in Psych, Neuro, EMG, and the OR for intubations, then covering OB anesthesia for epidurals does not make a pain physician. Rathmell missed the boat in trying to pinch off PMR from infringing on what he feels is "Anes's field". OK by me- because when they need a competent implanter in 5 years because they stopped maing them- I'll get to fix all that went wrong with an I told you so and a ton of patients in my waiting room. Good luck learning tri-pole and retrograde implantation techniques in the 4-5 months of actual training you will be getting.


Is that mad enough.

 

[Disciple]

It is sad that there is not more outrage over this, this issue seems to be sliding under the radar to some extent. Why arent more pm&r fellowships interested in maintaining or acquiring accreditation. I can think of several pmr&r residency programs currently at institutions that do not have anesthesia pain fellowships. I guess many pm&r applicants will continue their exodus to anesthesia fellowships in the years to come.

With the private practice fellowships or those based in a spine center, I think they're not maintaining accreditation because they would lose the fellow for large chunks of the academic year. It would also ruin what was to taught in the fellowship to a certain extent. I remember when the "minutes" from the inital negotiations were being revealed at the AAPMR conference two years ago. Personally, I think it was a way to stave off the creation of pain residencies by saying that the new guidelines now adequately include multidisciplinary training (however inadequate and lame it may be). So, it appears that we gave in to pressure or got conned, or whatever with agreeing to these new guidelines. What I can't understand is why we didn't send someone like Slipman, Windsor, Dreyfuss or Stan Herring to handle these negotiations. Everything was hunky dory for 5-6 years when all Physiatrists could take pain boards. The ABPMR knew the grandfather clause would expire and did nothing to prepare (low priority to the administration at the time I guess). So, I think alot of Physiatrists are irritated by the way things are, just not the ones in charge.
Unfortunately, none of us on this board will be in charge for a long, long time.