Anthony L Asher1, Ted Speroff, Robert S Dittus, Scott L Parker, Jason M Davies, Nathan Selden, Hui Nian, Steven Glassman, Praveen Mummaneni, Christopher Shaffrey, Clarence Watridge, Joseph S Cheng, Mathew J McGirt. 1. *Carolina Neurosurgery and Spine Associates and the Carolinas Healthcare System Neuroscience Institute, Charlotte, NC †Vanderbilt Institute for Medicine and Public Health, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN ‡Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville §Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN ¶Department of Neurosurgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN ∥Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco **Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland ††Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Louisville and the Norton Leatherman Spine Center, Louisville, KY ‡‡Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia Medical School, Charlottesville; and §§Semmes-Murphey Neurologic and Spine Institute, Memphis, TN.
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: National Prospective Observational Registry. OBJECTIVE: Describe our preliminary experience with the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (NQOD), a national collaborative registry of quality and outcomes reporting after low back surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: All major health care stakeholders are now requiring objective data regarding the value of medical services. Surgical therapies for spinal disorders have faced particular scrutiny in recent value-based discussions, in large part due to the dramatic growth in the cost and application of these procedures. Reliable data are fundamental to understanding the value of delivered health care. Clinical registries are increasingly used to provide such data. METHODS: The NQOD is a prospective observational registry designed to establish risk-adjusted expected morbidity and 1-year outcomes for the most common lumbar surgical procedures performed by spine surgeons; provide practice groups and hospitals immediate infrastructure for analyzing their 30-day morbidity and mortality and 3- and 12-month quality data in real-time; generate surgeon-, practice-, and specialty-specific quality and efficacy data; and generate nationwide quality and effectiveness data on specific surgical treatments. RESULTS: In its first 2 years of operation, the NQOD has proven to be a robust data collection platform that has helped demonstrate the objective quality of surgical interventions for medically refractory disorders of the lumbar spine. Lumbar spine surgery was found to be safe and effective at the group mean level in routine practice. Subgroups of patients did not report improvement using validated outcome measures. Substantial variation in treatment response was observed among individual patients. CONCLUSION: The NQOD is now positioned to determine the combined contribution of patient variables to specific clinical and patient-reported outcomes. These analyses will ultimately facilitate shared decision making and encourage efficient allocation of health care resources, thus significantly advancing the value paradigm in spine care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
STUDY DESIGN: National Prospective Observational Registry. OBJECTIVE: Describe our preliminary experience with the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (NQOD), a national collaborative registry of quality and outcomes reporting after low back surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: All major health care stakeholders are now requiring objective data regarding the value of medical services. Surgical therapies for spinal disorders have faced particular scrutiny in recent value-based discussions, in large part due to the dramatic growth in the cost and application of these procedures. Reliable data are fundamental to understanding the value of delivered health care. Clinical registries are increasingly used to provide such data. METHODS: The NQOD is a prospective observational registry designed to establish risk-adjusted expected morbidity and 1-year outcomes for the most common lumbar surgical procedures performed by spine surgeons; provide practice groups and hospitals immediate infrastructure for analyzing their 30-day morbidity and mortality and 3- and 12-month quality data in real-time; generate surgeon-, practice-, and specialty-specific quality and efficacy data; and generate nationwide quality and effectiveness data on specific surgical treatments. RESULTS: In its first 2 years of operation, the NQOD has proven to be a robust data collection platform that has helped demonstrate the objective quality of surgical interventions for medically refractory disorders of the lumbar spine. Lumbar spine surgery was found to be safe and effective at the group mean level in routine practice. Subgroups of patients did not report improvement using validated outcome measures. Substantial variation in treatment response was observed among individual patients. CONCLUSION: The NQOD is now positioned to determine the combined contribution of patient variables to specific clinical and patient-reported outcomes. These analyses will ultimately facilitate shared decision making and encourage efficient allocation of health care resources, thus significantly advancing the value paradigm in spine care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
Authors: Jacquelyn S Pennings; Clinton J Devin; Inamullah Khan; Mohamad Bydon; Anthony L Asher; Kristin R Archer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Patricia Walicke; Aviva Abosch; Anthony Asher; Fred G Barker; Zoher Ghogawala; Robert Harbaugh; Lara Jehi; John Kestle; Walter Koroshetz; Roderick Little; Donald Rubin; Alex Valadka; Stephen Wisniewski; E Antonio Chiocca Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Stanley H Benedict; Karen Hoffman; Mary K Martel; Amy P Abernethy; Anthony L Asher; Jacek Capala; Ronald C Chen; Bhisham Chera; Jennifer Couch; James Deye; Jason A Efstathiou; Eric Ford; Benedick A Fraass; Peter E Gabriel; Vojtech Huser; Brian D Kavanagh; Deepak Khuntia; Lawrence B Marks; Charles Mayo; Todd McNutt; Robert S Miller; Kevin L Moore; Fred Prior; Erik Roelofs; Barry S Rosenstein; Jeff Sloan; Anna Theriault; Bhadrasain Vikram Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Andrew K Chan; Shane Shahrestani; Alexander M Ballatori; Katie O Orrico; Geoffrey T Manley; Phiroz E Tarapore; Michael Huang; Sanjay S Dhall; Dean Chou; Praveen V Mummaneni; Anthony M DiGiorgio Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Leah Y Carreon; Erica F Bisson; Eric A Potts; Morgan E Brown; Stacie Gren; Rebecca Ruegg Cowan; Steven D Glassman Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2019-09-25
Authors: Ida Azizkhanian; Ryan Alcantara; Zachary Ballinger; Edward Cho; Silvi Dore; Stergios Gatzofilas; Raeesa Habiba Hossain; Jesse Honig; Nicole Matluck; Jonathan V Ogulnick; Michael Rothbaum; Iliya Rybkin; Harrison Smith; Brian Tung; Syed Faraz Kazim; Ivan Miller; Meic H Schmidt; Chad D Cole; Christian A Bowers Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: Jacob K Greenberg; Margaret A Olsen; John Poe; Christopher F Dibble; Ken Yamaguchi; Michael P Kelly; Bruce L Hall; Wilson Z Ray Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Jacob K Greenberg; Margaret A Olsen; Christopher F Dibble; Justin K Zhang; Brenton H Pennicooke; Ken Yamaguchi; Michael P Kelly; Bruce L Hall; Wilson Z Ray Journal: Spine J Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 4.166