Why the study?
Ensuring adverse event recording is standardized and accurate is paramount for patient safety.
Does independent clinical review capture more adverse events than administrative coding or surgeon reporting in elective orthopedic surgery?
Does independent clinical review capture more adverse events than administrative coding or surgeon reporting in elective orthopedic surgery?
Independent clinical reviewers capture significantly more adverse events than administrative coders or surgeons in elective orthopedic surgery, highlighting the limitations of current reporting methods.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Current reporting may underestimate AEs; leaves open whether independent review improves detection or outcomes in orthopedic surgery.
Summary: Ensuring adverse event (AE) recording is standardized and accurate is paramount for patient safety. In this discussion, we outline our comparison of AE data collected by orthopedic surgeons and independent clinical reviewers using the Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) against AE data recorded by hospital administrative discharge abstract coders. In 164 spine, hip, knee and shoulder patients, reviewers recorded significantly more AEs than coders, and coders recorded significantly more AEs than surgeons. The AEs were recorded similarly by reviewers using SAVES and OrthoSAVES in 48 spine patients. Despite our small sample size and use of different AE tools, we believe it is important to highlight that coders, surgeons and reviewers recorded AEs differently. While further investigations on its utility and cost-effectiveness are necessary, we assert that it is feasible to use Ortho-SAVES to prospectively record AEs across all orthopedic subspecialties.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: