What Is a Complication? Toward Objective Definition and Reporting of Adverse Outcomes



What Is a Complication? Toward Objective Definition and Reporting of Adverse Outcomes


Robert A. Hart

Paul A. Anderson

Sohail Mirza





THE STATE OF CURRENT PRACTICE: HOW ARE ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTED?

A number of outcomes tools are available for use in recording and reporting beneficial effects of cervical spine surgery. Substantial work has been directed toward the development and validation of these outcomes tools, some of which are specific to spinal conditions, and some of which are more general. Examples of validated outcomes tools used in cervical spine research include the Neck Disability Index (9), cervical spine Outcomes Questionnaire (10), and the SF-36 (11).






Figure 100.1. Conceptual framework for the physician surveys, interviews, and observational patient data.

Similar efforts have not been completed for tools designed to assess adverse outcomes. As a result, clinical investigators currently lack a validated, widely accepted tool for recording and reporting adverse events. Given this, it should not be surprising to find that clinical investigators take varying approaches in the reporting of adverse consequences of treatment. In fact, it appears that there is wide variability in recording and reporting of adverse events among orthopaedic clinical researchers in other specialties, as well as those focused on the cervical spine (12, 13, 14 and 15).

A recent systematic review of randomized controlled trials of orthopaedic interventions including joint arthroplasty and fracture care demonstrated wide variation in the approach of clinical investigators to adverse event reporting (15). This included varying definitions of which adverse events to report, as well as varying techniques of recording adverse events, including which investigator was assigned to assess their occurrence. The authors concluded that a standardized protocol for assessing and reporting of complications for orthopaedic clinical trials is needed.

Within the field of spine surgery, the situation appears to be similar. Fenton et al. (14) described substantial unexplained variation in reported rates of undesirable outcomes following lumbar fusion with stand-alone interbody cages. Edwards et al. (13) assessed patients’ own reports of difficulty with swallowing and phonation following ventral cervical surgery and found much higher rates from patient self-reporting than those derived from the operating surgeon or from an assessment of the medical record. Konodi et al. (16) polled 13 spine surgeons at a single institution regarding their beliefs of frequency of complications within their own practices using the Delphi technique for consensus building (Fig. 100.1). They found that surgeons’ own estimates were not an accurate reflection based on chart reviews for complication incidence, in some cases underestimating but in other cases overestimating the frequency
of specific adverse events. These results argue for the development of standardized patient-centered outcomes tools that query for occurrence of specific consequences that surgeons and other caregivers may fail to ask about or record during routine clinical follow-up.

Given the lack of uniform reporting, some efforts to gain information regarding negative impacts of spine surgery have utilized large databases as a source of comparative information regarding adverse outcomes (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23). Such databases are prone to incomplete and inaccurate data, as they are derived from billing and coding information and lack specific data regarding diagnoses, procedures, complications, and ultimate clinical outcomes. Thus, while comparisons of such data can be valid and potentially useful, they are ultimately not a satisfactory substitute for direct evaluation and reporting of adverse events. Given this, utilizing such data for policy making or clinical decision-making may be inappropriate.

Several efforts to fill this gap are underway (5,24,25). Mirza et al. recently described an index of the invasiveness of a given spine surgery as the sum of six scores regarding levels of ventral decompression, fusion, and instrumentation, along with analogous scores relating to dorsal procedures. They demonstrated a significant relationship between this index and operative time and blood loss across 1,723 spine surgeries (24). A further report from this group demonstrated a high level of agreement among independent reviewers of the etiology, preventability, and severity of 141 adverse occurrences following spine surgery, with a much higher adverse event rate recorded through a chart review by an uninvolved investigator as opposed to the reports of the treating surgeon and care team (5). Consistent feedback to surgeons regarding completion of data forms regarding surgical procedures and patients’ neurologic status did result in improvements in the accuracy and completeness of medical records over a 12 month timeframe (26). (Figs. 100.2 and 100.3)

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Jul 5, 2016 | Posted by in NEUROSURGERY | Comments Off on What Is a Complication? Toward Objective Definition and Reporting of Adverse Outcomes

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access