scholarly journals Correct Coding in Interventional Pain Management

2000 ◽  
Vol 3;3 (7;3) ◽  
pp. 313-321
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Procedural Coding for Interventional Pain Management

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 100703
Author(s):  
Shantanu Warhadpande ◽  
Stephanie L. Dybul ◽  
Minhaj S. Khaja
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

scholarly journals Radiation safety: a focus on lead aprons and thyroid shields in interventional pain management

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Kyung Cheon ◽  
Cho Long Kim ◽  
Ka Ram Kim ◽  
Min Hye Kang ◽  
Jeong Ae Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Radiation Safety ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Interventional Pain Management Procedures

2020 ◽  
pp. 523-653
Author(s):  
Gabor Bela Racz ◽  
Gabor J. Racz ◽  
Tibor A. Racz
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Management Procedures ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

scholarly journals Variations in Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection Practice Patterns by Interventional Pain Management Physicians in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. E493-E499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Doan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Image Guidance ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Steroid Injection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Needle Size ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection ◽  
Epidural Steroid

Background: Previous surveys have identified variations in practice patterns related to epidural steroid injections. Since then, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required the addition of drug warning labels for injectable corticosteroids. Updated evidence, as well as scrutiny from regulatory agencies, may affect practice patterns. Objective: To provide an update on interlaminar epidural steroid injection (ILESI) practice patterns, we surveyed interventional pain management (IPM) physicians in the United States. Study Design and Setting: This was a cross-sectional survey of IPM physicians in the United States. Methods: A web-based survey was distributed to IPM physicians in the United States selected from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited pain medicine fellowship program list as well as the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians membership database. Physicians were queried about ILESI practices, including needle size, use of image guidance, level of injection, identification of the epidural space, and preference for injectate. Results: A total of 249 responses were analyzed. All respondents used image guidance for ILESI. There were variations in needle size, use of contrast, number of fluoroscopic views utilized, technique for identifying the epidural space, and choice of injectate. Limitations: The response rate is a limitation, thus the results may not be representative of all United States IPM physicians. Conclusions: Though all respondents used image guidance for ILESI, variations in other ILESI practices still exist. Since the closure of this survey, a multi-society pain workgroup published recommendations regarding ESI practices. Our survey findings support the need for more evidencebased guidelines regarding ESI. Key words: Epidural injection, epidural steroids, survey, low back pain, neck pain, technique

scholarly journals Reassessment of Evidence Synthesis of Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines for Interventional Pain Management

2008 ◽  
Vol 4;11 (8;4) ◽  
pp. 393-482
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a substitute for clinical judgment. While the guideline development process is a complex phenomenon, conflict of interest in guideline development and inappropriate methodologies must be avoided. It has been alleged that the guidelines by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prevent injured workers from receiving the majority of medically necessary and appropriate interventional pain management services. An independent critical appraisal of both chapters of the ACOEM guidelines showed startling findings with a conclusion that these guidelines may not be applied in patient care as they scored below 30% in the majority of evaluations utilizing multiple standardized criteria. Objective: To reassess the evidence synthesis for the ACOEM guidelines for the low back pain and chronic pain chapters utilizing an expanded methodology, which includes the criteria included in the ACOEM guidelines with the addition of omitted literature and application of appropriate criteria. Methods: For reassessment, randomized trials were utilized as it was in the preparation of the guidelines. In this process, quality of evidence was assessed and recommendations were made based on grading recommendations of Guyatt et al. The level of evidence was determined utilizing the quality of evidence criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as the outdated quality of evidence criteria utilized by ACOEM in the guideline preparation. Methodologic quality of each individual article was assessed utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic assessment criteria for diagnostic interventions and Cochrane methodologic quality assessment criteria for therapeutic interventions. Results: The results of reassessment are vastly different from the conclusions derived by the ACOEM guidelines. The differences in strength of rating for the diagnosis of discogenic pain by provocation discography and facet joint pain by diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is established with strong evidence. Therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, percutaneous and endoscopic adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation qualified for moderate to strong evidence. Additional insight is also provided for evidence rating for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), automated percutaneous disc decompression, and intrathecal implantables. Conclusion: The reassessment and reevaluation of the low back and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines present results that are vastly different from the published and proposed guidelines. Contrary to ACOEM’s conclusions of insufficient evidence for most interventional techniques, the results illustrate moderate to strong evidence for most diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, ACOEM, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, guideline development, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines

scholarly journals Review of Occupational Medicine Practice Guidelines for Interventional Pain Management and Potential Implications

2008 ◽  
Vol 3;11 (5;3) ◽  
pp. 271-289
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Steroid Injections ◽  
Epidural Steroid Injections ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Epidural Steroid ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Based Medicine

In the modern day environment, workers’ compensation costs continue to be a challenge, with a need to balance costs, benefits, and quality of medical care. The cost of workers’ compensation care affects all stakeholders including workers, employers, providers, regulators, legislators, and insurers. Consequently, a continued commitment to quality, accessibility to care, and cost containment will help ensure that workers are afforded accessible, high quality, and cost-effective care. In 2004, workers’ compensation programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and federal programs in the United States combined received an income of $87.4 billion while paying out only $56 billion in medical and cash benefits with $31.4 billion or 37% in administrative expenses and profit. Occupational diseases represented only 8% of the workers’ compensation claims and 29% of the cost. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) has published several guidelines; though widely adopted by WCPs, these guidelines evaluate the practice of medicine of multiple specialties without adequate expertise and expert input from the concerned specialties, including interventional pain management. An assessment of the ACOEM guidelines utilizing Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria, the criteria developed by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and other significantly accepted criteria, consistently showed very low scores (< 30%) in most aspects of the these guidelines. The ACOEM recommendations do not appear to have been based on a careful review of the literature, overall quality of evidence, standard of care, or expert consensus. Based on the evaluation utilizing appropriate and current evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles, the evidence ratings for diagnostic techniques of lumbar discography; cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and sacroiliac joint nerve blocks; therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis; cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, and lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; caudal percutaneous adhesiolysis; abd spinal cord stimulation were found to be moderate with strong recommendation applying for most patients in most circumstances. The evidence ratings for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), an automated percutaneous disc decompression and also deserve further scrutiny and analysis. In conclusion, these ACOEM guidelines for interventional pain management have no applicability in modern patient care due to lack of expertise by the developing organization (ACOEM), lack of utilization of appropriate and current EBM principles, and lack of significant involvement of experts in these techniques resulting in a lack of clinical relevance. Thus, they may result in reduced medical quality of care; may severely hinder access to appropriate, medically needed and essential medical care; and finally, they may increase costs for injured workers, third party payors, and the government by transferring the injured worker into a non-productive disability system. Key words: Guidelines, ACOEM, ASIPP, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, guideline development, AHCPR, AHRQ, IOM, AMA, AGREE, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines

scholarly journals Value-Based Interventional Pain Management: A Review of Medicare National and Local Coverage Determination Policies

2013 ◽  
Vol 3;16 (3;5) ◽  
pp. E145-E180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
Medical Needs ◽  
Medicare Coverage ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Major policies, regulations, and practice patterns related to interventional pain management are dependent on Medicare policies which include national coverage policies – national coverage determinations (NCDs), and local coverage policies – local coverage determinations (LCDs). The NCDs are Medicare coverage policies issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The process used by the CMS in deciding what is and what is not medically necessary is lengthy, involving a review of evidence-based literature on the subject, expert opinion, and public comments. In contrast, LCDs are rules and Medicare coverage that are issued by regional contractors and fiscal intermediaries when an NCD has not addressed the policy at issue. The evidence utilized in preparing LCDs includes the highest level of evidence which is based on published authoritative evidence derived from definitive randomized clinical trials or other definitive studies, and general acceptance by the medical community (standard of practice), as supported by sound medical evidence. In addition, the intervention must be safe and effective and appropriate including duration and frequency that is considered appropriate for the item or service in terms of whether it is furnished in accordance with accepted standards of medical practice for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s condition or to improve the function. In addition, the safe and effective provision includes that service must be furnished in a setting appropriate to the patient’s medical needs and condition, ordered and furnished by qualified personnel, the service must meet, but does not exceed, the patient’s medical need, and be at least as beneficial as an existing and available medically appropriate alternative. The LCDs are prepared with literature review, state medical societies, and carrier advisory committees (CACs) of which interventional pain management is a member. The LCDs may be appealed by beneficiaries. The NCDs are prepared by the CMS following a request for a national coverage decision after an appropriate national coverage request along with a draft decision memorandum, and public comments. After the request, the staff review, external technology assessment, Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee (MedCAC) assessment, public comments, a draft decision memorandum may be posted which will be followed by a final decision and implementation instructions. This decision may be appealed to the department appeals board, but may be difficult to reverse. This manuscript describes NCDs and LCDs and the process of development, their development, issues related to the development, and finally their relation to interventional pain management. Key words: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, national coverage determinations (NCDs), local coverage determinations (LCDs), contractor medical director (CMD), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), guidelines, evidence-based medicine, evidence development with coverage

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document