The Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopaedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) are standardised assessment tools designed to record adverse events (AEs) in orthopaedic patients. The primary objective was to compare AEs recorded prospectively by orthopaedic surgeons compared to trained independent clinical reviewers. The secondary objective was to compare AEs following spine, hip, knee, and shoulder orthopaedic procedures. Over a 10-week period, three orthopaedic spine surgeons recorded AEs following all elective procedures to the point of patient discharge. Three orthopaedic surgeons (hip, knee, and shoulder) also recorded AEs for their elective procedures. Two independent reviewers used SAVES and OrthoSAVES to record AEs after reviewing clinical notes by surgeons and other healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses, physiotherapists). At discharge, AEs recorded by the surgeons and independent reviewers were recorded in a database. AE data for 164 patients were collected (48 spine, 52 hip, 33 knee, and 31 shoulder). Overall, 98 AEs were captured by the independent reviewers, compared to 14 captured by the surgeons. Independent reviewers recorded significantly more AEs than surgeons overall, as well as for each individual group (i.e. spine, hip, knee, shoulder) (p2), but surgeons failed to record minor events that were captured by the independent reviewers (e.g. urinary retention and cutaneous injuries; AEs Grade 0.05). AEs were reported in 21 (43.8%), 19 (36.5%), 12 (36.4%), and five (16.1%) spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients, respectively. Nearly all reported AEs required only simple or minor treatment (e.g. antibiotic, foley catheter) and had no effect on outcome. Two patients experienced AEs that required invasive or complex treatment (e.g. surgery, monitored bed) that had a temporary effect on outcome. Similar complication rates were reported in spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients. Independent reviewers reported more AEs compared to surgeons. These findings suggest that independent reviewers are more effective at capturing AEs following orthopaedic surgery, and thus, could be recruited in order to capture more AEs, enhance patient safety and care, and maximise different complication diagnoses in alignment with proposed diagnosis-based funding models

Introduction. Following the publication of our original survey in 2000 (Eur. Sp. J. 11(6):515-8 2002) we have sought to re-evaluate the perceptions and attitudes towards spinal surgery of the current UK orthopaedic Specialist Registrars (SpRs), and to identify factors influencing an interest in spinal surgery. At that time 175 orthopaedic spinal surgeons in the UK needed to increase by 25% to satisfy parity with other European countries. Methods. A postal questionnaire was sent to all 917 SpRs. The questionnaire sought to identify perceptions in spinal surgery, levels of current training and practice, and intentions to pursue a career in spinal surgery. Results. A 61% response rate has confirmed that 74% of trainees intend to avoid spinal surgery (69% in 2000). However 10% are committed to become a Specialist Spinal Surgeon (6.5% in 2000). Their perceptions were wide ranging but most concluded that the intellectual challenge and opportunities for research are widely recognised. However enthusiasm is dampened by poor perceptions of outcomes from surgery, negative somatisation and depression associations, complications and the fear of litigation. In some areas there is inadequate exposure to spinal surgery during the first 4 years of training. Conclusions. Spinal surgery remains a career choice for 10% of surgical trainees (up 3.5% since 2000). With a large SpR expansion (578 to 917 SpRs in the last 5 years) an average of 9 new spinal surgeons annually will be produced over the next six years. This has improved on the figure of 6 per year from 2000. These figures suggest that by 2011 and allowing for retirement, there should be enough spinal surgeons to meet the desired UK/Europe ratio

Aims

Medical comorbidities are a critical factor in the decision-making process for operative management and risk-stratification. The Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) risk adjustment model is a powerful measure of illness severity for patients treated by surgeons. The HCC is utilized by Medicare to predict medical expenditure risk and to reimburse physicians accordingly. HCC weighs comorbidities differently to calculate risk. This study determines the prevalence of medical comorbidities and the average HCC score in Medicare patients being evaluated by neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeon, as well as a subset of academic spine surgeons within both specialities, in the USA.