Adverse events (AEs) following spine surgery are very common. It is important to monitor the incidence of AEs to ensure that appropriate practices are implemented to minimise AEs and improve patient outcomes. The Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) is a validated AE recording tool specifically designed for spine surgery and the Orthopaedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) is a similar tool intended for general orthopaedic surgery. The main objective was to prospectively collect AE data from spine surgery patients using SAVES and OrthoSAVES and compare their viability and applicability for use. The longterm objective is to enhance patient safety by tracking AEs with a view towards potentially changing future healthcare practices to eliminate the risk factors for AEs.

For a 10-week period in June-September 2015, three spine surgeons used SAVES to record AEs experienced by any elective spine surgery patients. In addition, a trained independent clinical reviewer with access to electronic records, medical charts, and allied health professionals (e.g. nurses, physioterhapists) used SAVES and OrthoSAVES to record AEs for the same patients. At discharge, the SAVES forms from the surgeons and SAVES and OrthoSAVES forms from the independent reviewer were collected and all AEs were recorded in a database.

In 48 patients, the independent reviewer recorded a total of 45 AEs (4 intra-operative, 41 post-operative), compared to the surgeons who recorded a total of 8 AEs (2 intra-operative, 6 post-operative) (P2) were recorded by both the independent reviewer and surgeons. OrthoSAVES had the capacity to directly record 3 additional AEs that had to be included in the “Other” section on SAVES.

SAVES and OrthoSAVES are valuable tools for recording AEs. Use of SAVES and OrthoSAVES has the potential to enhance patient care and safety by ensuring AEs are followed by the surgeon during their in-hospital stay and prior to discharge. Independent reviewers are more effective at capturing AEs following spine surgery, and thus, could be recruited in order to capture more AEs and maximise different complication diagnoses in alignment with proposed diagnosis-based funding models. The next step is to analyse AE data identified by the hospital discharge abstract to determine whether retrospective administrative coding can adequately record AEs compared to prospectively-collected AE data with SAVES/OrthoSAVES.

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.

Background

Foraminal stenosis is often encountered in patients undergoing decompression for spinal stenosis. Given the increased resection of facets and the presence of the more sensitive dorsal root ganglion, it is hypothesized that patients with foraminal stenosis have poorer postoperative outcomes.