Patient safety indicators from a spine surgery perspective: the importance of a specialty specific clinician working with the documentation team and the impact to your hospital.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Hospital Acquired Conditions (HAC) Reduction Program supports the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) effort to prevent harm to patients by providing a financial incentive to reduce HACs. HAC scores are impacted by Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), potentially preventable hospital-related events associated with harmful patient outcomes. PSIs are identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding; however, ICD coding does not always reflect the patient's true medical course. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of and costs savings associated with a clinical documentation review process in tandem with clinician collaboration in identifying incorrectly generated PSIs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients undergoing spine surgery at a single multi-surgeon tertiary spine center. OUTCOME MEASURES: Occurrence of PSI. METHODS: Over two 11-month periods, all PSIs attributable to spine surgery were determined. The number and type of spine related PSIs were compared before (Control) and after the implementation of a specialty specific clinical review (Intervention) to identify incorrectly generated PSIs. The financial impact of this intervention was calculated in the form of an annual cost savings to our hospital system. RESULTS: During the Control phase, 61 PSIs were reported in 3368 spine cases, representing a total of 3.6 PSIs/month. During Intervention phase, 26 PSIs in 4,482 spine cases, resulting in a statistically significant decrease of 1.5 PSIs per month. The percentage of PSIs across all surgical cases attributable to spine surgery had a statistically significant decrease during the Intervention period compared to the Control period (16% vs. 10%, p=.034), resulting in the avoidance of a 1% CMS cost reduction, an annual cost saving of approximately $3-4 million dollars per year. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a clinical documentation review process with clinician collaboration to ensure ICD-10 coding accurately reflects the patient's medical course leads to more accurate PSI reporting, with the potential for substantial cost-savings for hospitals from CMS reimbursement.

Drivers of in-hospital opioid consumption in patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery.

BACKGROUND: With the current opioid crisis, as many as 38% of patients are still on opioids one year after elective spine surgery. Identifying drivers of in-hospital opioid consumption may decrease subsequent opioid dependence. We aimed to identify the drivers of in-hospital opioid consumption in patients undergoing 1-2-level instrumented lumbar fusions. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. Electronic medical record analysts identified consecutive patients undergoing 1-2 level instrumented lumbar fusions for degenerative lumbar conditions from 2016 to 2018 from a single-center hospital administrative database. Oral, intravenous, and transdermal opioid dose administrations were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Linear regression analysis was used to determine associations between postoperative day (POD) 4 cumulative in-hospital MMEs and the patients' baseline characteristics including body mass index (BMI), race, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, smoking status, marital status, insurance type, zip code, number of fused levels, approach and preoperative opioid use. RESULTS: A total of 1,502 patients were included. The mean cumulative MMEs at POD 4 was 251.5. Linear regression analysis yielded four drivers including younger age, preoperative opioid use, current smokers and more levels fused. There were no associations with surgical approach, zip code, ASA grade, marital status, BMI, race or insurance type. CONCLUSIONS: Use of preoperative opioids and smoking are modifiable risk factors for higher in-hospital opioid consumption and can be targets for intervention prior to surgery in order to decrease in-hospital opioid use.

Drivers for nonhome discharge in a consecutive series of 1502 patients undergoing 1- or 2-level lumbar fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Unexpected nonhome discharge causes additional costs in the current reimbursement models, especially to the payor. Nonhome discharge is also related to longer length of hospital stay and therefore higher healthcare costs to society. With increasing demand for spine surgery, it is important to minimize costs by streamlining discharges and reducing length of hospital stay. Identifying factors associated with nonhome discharge can be useful for early intervention for discharge planning. The authors aimed to identify the drivers of nonhome discharge in patients undergoing 1- or 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion. METHODS: The electronic medical records from a single-center hospital administrative database were analyzed for consecutive patients who underwent 1- to 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions during the period from 2016 to 2018. Discharge disposition was determined as home or nonhome. A logistic regression analysis was used to determine associations between nonhome discharge and age, sex, body mass index (BMI), race, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, smoking status, marital status, insurance type, residence in an underserved zip code, and operative factors. RESULTS: A total of 1502 patients were included. The majority (81%) were discharged home. Factors associated with a nonhome discharge were older age, higher BMI, living in an underserved zip code, not being married, being on government insurance, and having more levels fused. Patients discharged to a nonhome facility had longer lengths of hospital stay (5.6 vs 3.0 days, p < 0.001) and significantly increased hospital costs ($21,204 vs $17,518, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Increased age, greater BMI, residence in an underserved zip code, not being married, and government insurance are drivers for discharge to a nonhome facility after a 1- to 2-level instrumented lumbar fusion. Early identification and intervention for these patients, even before admission, may decrease the length of hospital stay and medical costs.

Index episode-of-care propensity-matched comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) techniques: open traditional TLIF versus midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) versus robot-assisted MIDLIF.

OBJECTIVE: Posterior fixation with interbody cage placement can be accomplished via numerous techniques. In an attempt to expedite recovery by limiting muscle dissection, midline lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) has been described. More recently, the authors have developed a robot-assisted MIDLIF (RA-MIDLIF) technique. The purpose of this study was to compare the index episode-of-care (iEOC) parameters between patients undergoing traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (tTLIF), MIDLIF, and RA-MIDLIF. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospective, multisurgeon surgical database was performed. Consecutive patients undergoing 1- or 2-level tTLIF, MIDLIF, or RA-MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions were identified. Patients in each cohort were propensity matched based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and number of levels fused. Index EOC parameters such as length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), operating room (OR) time, and actual, direct hospital costs for the index surgical visit were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 281 and 249 patients undergoing tTLIF and MIDLIF, respectively, 52 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched to the authors' first 55 RA-MIDLIF cases. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no significant difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in all cohorts. The mean total iEOC was similar across all cohorts. Patients undergoing RA-MIDLIF had a shorter average LOS (1.53 days) than those undergoing either MIDLIF (2.71 days) or tTLIF (3.58 days). Both MIDLIF and RA-MIDLIF were associated with lower EBL and less OR time compared with tTLIF. CONCLUSIONS: Despite concerns for additional cost and time while introducing navigation or robotic technology, a propensity-matched comparison of the authors' first 52 RA-MIDLIF surgeries with tTLIF and MIDLIF showed promising results for reducing OR time, EBL, and LOS without increasing cost.

Multi-modal pain control regimen for anterior lumbar fusion drastically reduces in-hospital opioid consumption.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic is at epic proportions currently in the United States. Exposure to opioids for surgery and subsequent postoperative pain management is a known risk factor for opioid dependence. In addition, opioids can have a negative impact on multiple aspects including clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and overall cost of care. Thus, the greatest effort to reduce perioperative opioid use is necessary and a multimodal pain control (MMPC) has been gaining popularity. However, its efficacy in spine surgery is not well known. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a MMPC protocol in patients undergoing lumbar single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). METHODS: This is a retrospective comparative study. From a prospective, single-surgeon, surgical database, consecutive patients undergoing single-level ALIF with or without subsequent posterior fusion for degenerative lumbar conditions were identified before and after initiation of the MMPC protocol. The MMPC protocol consisted of a preoperative oral regimen of cyclobenzaprine (10 mg), gabapentin (600 mg), acetaminophen (1 g), and methadone (10 mg). Postoperatively they received a bilateral transverse abdominis plane block with 0.5% Ropivacaine prior to extubation. We compared in-hospital opioid consumption between the MMPC and non-MMPC cohorts as well as baseline demographic, the length of hospital stay, cost, and rate of postoperative ileus. Opioid consumption was calculated and normalized to the morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). RESULTS: In total, 68 patients in the MMPC cohort and 39 in the non-MMPC cohort were identified. There was no difference in baseline demographics including sex, body mass index, smoking status, or preoperative opioid use between the two groups. Although there was no difference in the MMEs on the day of surgery (58.5 vs. 66.9, P=0.387), cumulative MMEs each day after surgery was significantly lower in the MMPC cohort, with final cumulative MMEs being reduced by 62% (120.2 vs. 314.8, P<0.001). There was no difference in postoperative ileus, length of stay, and hospital costs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a MMPC protocol in patients undergoing single-level ALIF for degenerative conditions reduced opioid consumption starting on the first day after surgery, resulting in a cumulative reduction of 62%.

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive midline lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) using cortical screw fixation is a novel, minimally invasive procedure that may offer enhanced recovery over traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Little information is available regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of the MIDLIF over conventional TLIF. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive MIDLIF with open TLIF. METHODS: From a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database, a consecutive series of patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions was identified and propensity matched to patients undergoing TLIF based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and levels fused. Direct costs at 1 year were collected, including costs associated with the index surgical visit as well as costs associated with readmission. Improvement in health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D and SF-6D. RESULTS: Of 214 and 181 patients undergoing MIDLIF and TLIF, respectively, 33 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. Variable direct costs at 1 year were $2493 lower in the MIDLIF group than in the open TLIF group (mean $15,867 vs $17,612, p = 0.073). There was no difference in implant (p = 0.193) or biologics (p = 0.145) cost, but blood utilization (p = 0.015), operating room supplies (p < 0.001), hospital room and board (p < 0.001), pharmacy (p = 0.010), laboratory (p = 0.004), and physical therapy (p = 0.009) costs were all significantly lower in the MIDLIF group. Additionally, the mean length of stay was decreased for MIDLIF as well (3.21 vs 4.02 days, p = 0.05). The EQ-5D gain at 1 year was 0.156 for MIDLIF and 0.141 for open TLIF (p = 0.821). The SF-6D gain at 1 year was 0.071 for MIDLIF and 0.057 for open TLIF (p = 0.551). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients undergoing traditional open TLIF, those undergoing MIDLIF have similar 1-year gains in health-related quality of life, with total direct costs that are $2493 lower. Although the findings were not statistically significant, minimally invasive MIDLIF showed improved cost-effectiveness at 1 year compared with open TLIF.