Background. Our current research aims to develop technologies to predict spinal loads in vivo using a combination of imaging and modelling methods. To ensure the project's success and inform future applications of the technology, we sought to understand the opinions and perspectives of patients and the public. Methods. A 90-minute public and patient involvement event was developed in collaboration with Exeter Science Centre and held on World Spine Day 2023. The event involved a brief introduction to the project goals followed by an interactive questionnaire to gauge the participants’ background knowledge and interest. The participants then discussed five topics: communication, future directions of the research, concerns about the research protocol, concerns about data, and interest in the project team and research process. A final questionnaire was used to determine their thoughts about the event. Results. Twelve adults attended the event, many motivated by their experience or interest in back pain. A thematic analysis was used to review participant comments on the research project, identifying the need to relate the research to everyday life, present risks in various ways, and be transparent about funding and data sharing. In terms of future applications, participants felt the technology should be used to understand normal spine behaviour, prevent problems, and improve treatment. Participants agreed that they had got something positive out of engaging in the event. Conclusion. Engagement with public and patient stakeholders is an essential activity that can generate vital information to inform and add value to technology development projects. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. EPSRC grants EP/V036602/1 (Meakin, Holsgrove & Javadi) and EP/V032275/1 (Holt & Williams)

Peninsula Spinal Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation NHS Trust, Exeter, UK. A retrospective audit in 2000 of cases presenting with metastatic cord compression (MSCC) was conducted. In June 2009 we introduced the role of MSCC coordinator. We present the preliminary results from a 6 month comparative audit and discuss whether implementation of the NICE Guidelines have improved the care pathway. Prospective cohort study with retrospective controlled group. Adults with suspected MSCC. Length of time to MR imaging. % referred for surgical opinion. Length of time on bed rest. % undergoing surgery. Retrospective audit 2000. 38 cases confirmed MSCC. 11 did not have MRI and were treated on the basis of clinical symptoms. Average time from admission to MRI 42 hours. 8 patients (21%) referred for surgical opinion. None had surgery. 38 had radiotherapy. Spinal stability documented on 1 patient. 5.5 days average bed rest. Prospective audit 2009. 54 patients referred to co-ordinator as suspected MSCC. 52 had MRI and 2 had CT. Average time from referral to MRI 41 hours. Average time for patients with neurological deficit 7.6 hours. 54 patients (100%) referred for surgical opinion. 12 patients had surgery (22%). 100% patients had spinal stability documented. Average length of time on bed rest 2 days. It is uncertain whether these results are attributed to the introduction of the NICE guidelines or improved awareness of condition. However we feel that NICE guidelines have improved the care pathway of patients with MSCC. Statement of ethics and interests: Study was approved and registered with audit department