4.6 Article

Pain Medicine: The Case for an Independent Medical Specialty and Training Programs

Journal

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
Volume 89, Issue 6, Pages 863-868

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000265

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over the last 30 years, pain has become one of the most dynamic areas of medicine and a public health issue. According to a recent Institute of Medicine report, pain affects approximately 100 million Americans at an estimated annual economic cost of $ 560 to $ 635 billion and is poorly treated overall. The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) recognizes a pain subspecialty, but pain care delivery has struggled with increasing demand and developed in an inconsistent and uncoordinated fashion. Pain education is insufficient and highly variable. Multiple pain professional organizations have led to fragmentation of the field and lack of interdisciplinary agreement, resulting in confusion regarding who speaks for pain medicine. In this Perspective, the authors argue that ABMS recognition of pain medicine as an independent medical specialty would provide much needed structure and oversight for the field and would generate credibility for the specialty and its providers among medical peers, payers, regulatory and legislative agencies, and the public at large. The existing system, managed by three ABMS boards, largely excludes other specialties that contribute to pain care, fails to provide leadership from a single professional organization, provides suboptimal training exposure to pain medicine, and lengthens training, which results in inefficient use of time and educational resources. The creation of a primary ABMS conjoint board in pain medicine with its own residency programs and departments would provide better coordinated training, ensure the highest degree of competence of pain medicine specialists, and improve the quality of pain care and patient safety.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available