Follow-up results confirm that ACC DBS alleviates chronic neuropathic pain refractory to pharmacotherapy and improves quality of life in many patients.

Background Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment for chronic neuropathic, neuropathic‐like and ischaemic pain. However, the heterogeneity of patients in daily clinical practice makes it often challenging to determine which patients are eligible for this treatment, resulting in undesirable practice variations. This study aimed to establish patient‐specific recommendations for referral and selection of SCS in chronic pain. Methods A multidisciplinary European panel used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) to assess the appropriateness of (referral for) SCS for 386 clinical scenarios in four pain areas: chronic low back pain and/or leg pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathic pain syndromes and ischaemic pain syndromes. In addition, the panel identified a set of psychosocial factors that are relevant to the decision for SCS treatment. Results Appropriateness of SCS was strongly determined by the neuropathic or neuropathic‐like pain component, location and spread of pain, anatomic abnormalities and previous response to therapies targeting pain processing (e.g. nerve block). Psychosocial factors considered relevant for SCS selection were as follows: lack of engagement, dysfunctional coping, unrealistic expectations, inadequate daily activity level, problematic social support, secondary gain, psychological distress and unwillingness to reduce high‐dose opioids. An educational e‐health tool was developed that combines clinical and psychosocial factors into an advice on referral/selection for SCS. Conclusions The RUAM was useful to establish a consensus on patient‐specific criteria for referral/selection for SCS in chronic pain. The e‐health tool may help physicians learn to apply an integrated approach of clinical and psychosocial factors. Significance Determining the eligibility of SCS in patients with chronic pain requires careful consideration of a variety of clinical and psychosocial factors. Using a systematic approach to combine evidence from clinical studies and expert opinion, a multidisciplinary European expert panel developed detailed recommendations to support appropriate referral and selection for SCS in chronic pain. These recommendations are available as an educational e‐health tool (https://www.scstool.org/).

Accessible summary• One in four people with a severe learning disability harm themselves.• This affects their health and quality of life.• This study looks at research on helping people who harm themselves.• More research needs to be done to find better ways of helping people who harm themselves. SummaryEstimates suggest that up to one quarter of people who have a severe learning disability engage in self injurious behaviour (SIB). SIB poses serious risks, both to the person's physical health and their quality of life. Behavioural approaches have made a contribution to supporting people who engage in SIB, although the last review of these approaches was completed in 2001. The current study provides an update to this review, and has considered papers published over the last 10 years. A systematic search of peer reviewed journals and the 'grey' literature identified 34 relevant documents, the majority of which were single case studies. These papers tended to report only on changes in the frequency of SIB during the intervention; one cannot conclude, therefore, about the long term efficacy and generalisability of these approaches. Reductions in SIB were highly variable, often produced in controlled environments and with the use of aversive interventions. The current study presents implications for research and clinical practice and highlights the need for more research reporting on the effectiveness of new interventions such as positive behavioural support.

BackgroundInnovative neurosurgical treatments present a number of known risks, the natures and probabilities of which can be adequately communicated to patients via the standard procedures governing obtaining informed consent. However, due to their novelty, these treatments also come with unknown risks, which require an augmented approach to obtaining informed consent.ObjectiveThis paper aims to discuss and provide concrete procedural guidance on the ethical issues raised by serious unexpected complications of novel deep brain stimulation treatments.ApproachWe illustrate our analysis using a case study of the unexpected development of recurrent stereotyped events in patients following the use of deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat severe chronic pain. Examining these unexpected complications in light of medical ethical principles, we argue that serious complications of novel DBS treatments do not necessarily make it unethical to offer the intervention to eligible patients. However, the difficulty the clinician faces in determining whether the intervention is in the patient's best interests generates reasons to take extra steps to promote the autonomous decision making of these patients.Conclusion and recommendationsWe conclude with clinical recommendations, including details of an augmented consent process for novel DBS treatment.