MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403814772 · doi:10.1097/qmh.0000000000000488

Mitigating Medical Adverse Events Following Spinal Surgery: The Effectiveness of a Postoperative Quality Improvement (QI) Care Bundle

2024· article· en· W4403814772 on OpenAlexaff
Eryck Moskven, Michael Craig, Daniel Banaszek, Tom Inglis, Lise Bélanger, Eric C. Sayre, Tamir Ailon, Raphaële Charest-Morin, Nicolas Dea, Marcel F. Dvorak, Charles G. Fisher, Brian Kwon, Scott Paquette, Dean R. Chittock, Donald Griesdale, John Street

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Management in Health Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaResearch Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectObservational studyIncidence (geometry)SurgeryEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Spine surgery is associated with a high incidence of postoperative medical adverse events (AEs). Many of these events are considered "minor" though their cost and effect on outcome may be underestimated. We sought to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a postoperative quality improvement (QI) care bundle in mitigating postoperative medical AEs in adult surgical spine patients. METHODS: We collected 14-year prospective observational interrupted time series (ITS) with two historical cohorts: 2006 to 2008, pre-implementation of the postoperative QI care bundle; and 2009 to 2019, post-implementation of the postoperative QI care bundle. Adverse Events were identified and graded (Minor I and II) using the previously validated Spine AdVerse Events Severity (SAVES) system. Pearson Correlation tested for changes across patient and surgical variables. Adjusted segmented regression estimated the effect of the postoperative QI care bundle on the annual and absolute incidences of medical AEs between the two periods. A cost model estimated the annual cumulative cost savings through preventing these "minor" medical AEs. RESULTS: We included 13,493 patients over the study period with a mean of 964 per year (SD ± 73). Mean age, mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and mean spine surgical invasiveness index (SSII) increased from 48.4 to 58.1 years; 1.7 to 2.6; and 15.4 to 20.5, respectively (p < 0.001). Unadjusted analysis confirmed a significant decrease in the annual number of all medical AEs (p < 0.01). When adjusting for age, CCI and SSII, segmented regression demonstrated a significant absolute reduction in the annual incidence of cardiac, pulmonary, nausea and medication-related AEs by 9.58%, 7.82%, 11.25% and 15.01%, respectively (p < 0.01). The postoperative QI care bundle was not associated with reducing the annual incidence of delirium, electrolyte levels or GI AEs. Annual projected cost savings for preventing Grade I and II medical AEs were $1,808,300 CAD and $11,961,500 CAD. CONCLUSION: Postoperative QI care bundles are effective for improving patient care and preventing medical care-related AEs, with significant cost savings. Postoperative QI care bundles should be tailored to the specific vulnerability of the surgical population for experiencing AEs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.416 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality Management in Health CareSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207