National Neurosurgery Quality Research Articles

Mental health comorbidities in workers' compensation patients and the effect on pain, disability, quality of life, and return to work after lumbar spine surgery.

The impact of mental health comorbidities on outcomes after lumbar spine surgery in workers' compensation (WC) patients has not been robustly explored. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of mental health comorbidities on pain, disability, quality of life, and return to work after lumbar spine surgery in WC patients. A nationwide, prospective surgical outcomes registry (National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database [N2QOD]) was queried for all patients who underwent 1- to 4-level lumbar decompression and/or fusion from 2012 to 2021. Patients were stratified on the basis of compensation status into non-WC (25,507) and WC (1018) cohorts. Baseline demographic data, perioperative safety data, and patient-reported outcome measures were compared between groups. The WC cohort was further subdivided on the basis of mental health status into patients with anxiety and depression (n = 107) and those without anxiety and depression (n = 911). Propensity matching was used to generate parity between these subgroups, generating 214 patients (107 pairs) for analysis. Perioperative safety, facility utilization, 1-year patient-reported outcomes (back and leg pain, disability, and quality of life), and return to work were measured as a function of WC and mental health comorbidity status. A total of 26,525 patients (25,507 non-WC and 1018 WC) who underwent 1- to 4-level lumbar spine surgery were reviewed. WC patients were younger, healthier (lower American Society of Anesthesiologists class), more likely to be minorities, less educated, and more likely to smoke and had greater baseline back pain, disability, and quality of life compared to non-WC patients. The prevalence of anxiety and depression was similar between groups (11%). WC patients had worse outcomes for all measures and lower rates of return to work compared to non-WC patients. WC patients with anxiety and depression demonstrated even greater disparities in all outcomes. After propensity matching, WC patients with anxiety and depression continued to demonstrate significantly worse outcomes in comparison to WC patients without anxiety and depression. Disparities in outcomes after lumbar spine surgery in WC patients are exacerbated in patients with anxiety and depression. WC patients with mental health comorbidities receive the least benefit from lumbar spine surgery and may represent the most vulnerable subset of patients with spine pathology. Addressing mental health comorbidities preoperatively may represent an opportunity for valuable resource allocation and surgical optimization in the WC population.

Quality Outcomes Database Spine Care Project 2012-2020: milestones achieved in a collaborative North American outcomes registry to advance value-based spine care and evolution to the American Spine Registry.

The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD), formerly known as the National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database (N2QOD), was established by the NeuroPoint Alliance (NPA) in collaboration with relevant national stakeholders and experts. The overarching goal of this project was to develop a centralized, nationally coordinated effort to allow individual surgeons and practice groups to collect, measure, and analyze practice patterns and neurosurgical outcomes. Specific objectives of this registry program were as follows: "1) to establish risk-adjusted national benchmarks for both the safety and effectiveness of neurosurgical procedures, 2) to allow practice groups and hospitals to analyze their individual morbidity and clinical outcomes in real time, 3) to generate both quality and efficiency data to support claims made to public and private payers and objectively demonstrate the value of care to other stakeholders, 4) to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of neurosurgical and spine procedures, 5) to develop sophisticated 'risk models' to determine which subpopulations of patients are most likely to benefit from specific surgical interventions, and 6) to facilitate essential multicenter trials and other cooperative clinical studies." The NPA has launched several neurosurgical specialty modules in the QOD program in the 7 years since its inception including lumbar spine, cervical spine, and spinal deformity and cerebrovascular and intracranial tumor. The QOD Spine modules, which are the primary subject of this paper, have evolved into the largest North American spine registries yet created and have resulted in unprecedented cooperative activities within our specialty and among affiliated spine care practitioners. Herein, the authors discuss the experience of QOD Spine programs to date, with a brief description of their inception, some of the key achievements and milestones, as well as the recent transition of the spine modules to the American Spine Registry (ASR), a collaboration between the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

Quality of British and American Nationwide Quality of Care and Patient Safety Benchmarking Programs: Case Neurosurgery.

Multiple nationwide outcome registries are utilized for quality benchmarking between institutions and individual surgeons. To evaluate whether nationwide quality of care programs in the United Kingdom and United States can measure differences in neurosurgical quality. This prospective observational study comprised 418 consecutive adult patients undergoing elective craniotomy at Helsinki University Hospital between December 7, 2011 and December 31, 2012.We recorded outcome event rates and categorized them according to British Neurosurgical National Audit Programme (NNAP), American National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and American National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD) to assess the applicability of these programs for quality benchmarking and estimated sample sizes required for reliable quality comparisons. The rate of in-hospital major and minor morbidity was 18.7% and 38.0%, respectively, and 30-d mortality rate was 2.4%. The NSQIP criteria identified 96.2% of major but only 38.4% of minor complications. N2QOD performed better, but almost one-fourth (23.2%) of all patients with adverse outcomes, mostly minor, went unnoticed. For NNAP, a sample size of over 4200 patients per surgeon is required to detect a 50.0% increase in mortality rates between surgeons. The sample size required for reliable comparisons between the rates of complications exceeds 600 patients per center per year. The implemented benchmarking programs in the United Kingdom and United States fail to identify a considerable number of complications in a high-volume center. Health care policy makers should be cautious as outcome comparisons between most centers and individual surgeons are questionable if based on the programs.

Correlation Between Press Ganey Scores and Quality Outcomes From The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (Lumbar Spine) for a Hospital Employed Neurosurgical Practice.

Correlation Between Press Ganey Scores and Quality Outcomes From The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (Lumbar Spine) for a Hospital Employed Neurosurgical Practice.

Predictors of Hospital Readmission and Surgical Site Infection in the United States, Denmark, and Japan: Is Risk Stratification a Universal Language?

Retrospective review of three spine surgery databases. The purpose of the present study is to determine whether predictors of hospital readmission and surgical site infection (SSI) after lumbar fusion will be the same in United States, Denmark, and Japan. Because clinical decision making becomes more data driven, risk stratification will be crucial to minimize complications. Spine surgeons worldwide face this issue, leading to parallel efforts to address risk stratification. This raises the question as to whether pooled data would be valuable and whether models generated in one country would be applicable to other populations. Predictors of SSI and 30-day readmission from three prospective databases (National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database [N2QOD] N = 2653, DaneSpine N = 1993, Japan Multicenter Spine Database [JAMSD] N = 3798) were determined and compared to identify common or divergent predictive risks. Predictive variables differed in the three databases, for both readmission and SSI. Factors predictive for hospital readmission were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade in N2QOD (P = 0.013, odds ratio [OR] 2.08), fusion levels in DaneSpine (P = 0.005, OR 1.67), and sex in JAMSD (P = 0.001, OR = 2.81). Associated differences in demographics and procedural factors included mean ASA grade (N2QOD = 2.45, JAMSD = 1.72) and fusion levels (N2QOD = 1.39, DaneSpine = 1.52, JAMSD = 1.34). For SSI, sex (P = 0.000, OR = 3.30), diabetes (P = 0.000, OR = 2.90), and length of stay (P = 0.000, OR = 1.02) were predictive in JAMSD. No predictors were identified in N2QOD or DaneSpine. Predictors of SSI and hospital readmission differ in the United States, Denmark, and Japan, suggesting that risk stratification models may need to be population specific or adjusted. Some differences in measured parameters exist in the three databases analyzed; however, patient and procedure selection also appear to differ and may limit the ability to directly pool data from different regions. Therefore, risk stratification models developed in one country may not be directly applicable to other countries. 2.

Preoperative Depression, Smoking, and Employment Status are Significant Factors in Patient Satisfaction After Lumbar Spine Surgery.

Prospective cohort study. To determine whether comorbidities and demographics, identified preoperatively, can impact patient outcomes and satisfaction after lumbar spine surgery. The surgical treatment of lower back pain does not always eliminate a patient's pain and symptoms. Revision surgeries are costly and expose the patient to additional risk. We aim to identify patient characteristics that may suggest a greater or lesser likelihood of postsurgical success by examining patient-reported measures and outcomes after surgery. Preoperative smoking status, self-reported depression, prevalence of diabetes, obesity, level of education, and employment status were assessed in the context of patient outcome and satisfaction after lumbar spine surgery. Patients were contacted before surgery, and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively, and responded to Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) self-assessment examinations, as well as a satisfaction measure. A total of 166 patients who underwent lumbar spine surgeries at Iowa Spine and Brain Institute, a department of Covenant Medical Center, and were included in the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database were assessed preoperatively, and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively using self-assessment tools. Depression, smoking, and employment status were found to be significant factors in patient satisfaction. Depressed patients, smokers, and patients on disability at the time of surgery have worse ODI and EQ-5D scores at all of the timepoints (baseline, 3 months, and 12 months postsurgery). Depression, smoking, and employment status, specifically whether a patient is on disability at the time of surgery, are all significant factors in patient satisfaction after lumbar spine surgery. These factors are also shown in impact ODI and EQ-5D scores. Surgeons should consider these particular characteristics when developing a lower back pain treatment plan involving surgery.

Risk factors for 30-day reoperation and 3-month readmission: analysis from the Quality and Outcomes Database lumbar spine registry.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this paper was to use a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter outcome registry of patients undergoing surgery for lumbar degenerative disease in order to assess the incidence and factors associated with 30-day reoperation and 90-day readmission. METHODS Prospectively collected data from 9853 patients from the Quality and Outcomes Database (QOD; formerly known as the N2QOD [National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database]) lumbar spine registry were retrospectively analyzed. Multivariate binomial regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day reoperation and 90-day readmission after surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. A subgroup analysis of Medicare patients stratified by age (< 65 and ≥ 65 years old) was also performed. Continuous variables were compared using unpaired t-tests, and proportions were compared using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS There was a 2% reoperation rate within 30 days. Multivariate analysis revealed prolonged operative time during the index case as the only independent factor associated with 30-day reoperation. Other factors such as preoperative diagnosis, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, diabetes, and use of spinal implants were not associated with reoperations within 30 days. Medicare patients < 65 years had a 30-day reoperation rate of 3.7%, whereas those ≥ 65 years had a 30-day reoperation rate of 2.2% (p = 0.026). Medicare beneficiaries younger than 65 years undergoing reoperation within 30 days were more likely to be women (p = 0.009), have a higher BMI (p = 0.008), and have higher rates of depression (p < 0.0001). The 90-day readmission rate was 6.3%. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that higher ASA class (OR 1.46 per class, 95% CI 1.25-1.70) and history of depression (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04-1.54) were factors associated with 90-day readmission. Medicare beneficiaries had a higher rate of 90-day readmissions compared with those who had private insurance (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.76). Medicare patients < 65 years of age were more likely to be readmitted within 90 days after their index surgery compared with those ≥ 65 years (10.8% vs 7.7%, p = 0.017). Medicare patients < 65 years of age had a significantly higher BMI (p = 0.001) and higher rates of depression (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS In this analysis of a large prospective, multicenter registry of patients undergoing lumbar degenerative surgery, multivariate analysis revealed that prolonged operative time was associated with 30-day reoperation. The authors found that factors associated with 90-day readmission included higher ASA class and a history of depression. The 90-day readmission rates were higher for Medicare beneficiaries than for those who had private insurance. Medicare patients < 65 years of age were more likely to undergo reoperation within 30 days and to be readmitted within 90 days after their index surgery.

Is the use of minimally invasive fusion technologies associated with improved outcomes after elective interbody lumbar fusion? Analysis of a nationwide prospective patient-reported outcomes registry

Background ContextOver the last decade, clinical investigators and biomedical industry groups have used significant resources to develop advanced technologies that enable less invasive spine fusions. These minimally invasive surgery (MIS) technologies often require increased expenditures by hospitals and payers. Although several small single center studies have suggested MIS technologies decrease surgical morbidity and reduce hospital stay, evidence documenting benefit from a patient perspective remains limited. Furthermore, MIS outcomes have yet to be evaluated from the perspective of multiple practice types representing the broad spectrum of US spine surgery. PurposeThis study aimed to examine a population of patients who underwent one- or two-level interbody lumbar fusion diagnosed with lumbar stenosis or Grade 1 spondylolisthesis in an observational, prospective national registry for the purposes of determining how MIS and traditional open technologies affect postsurgical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Study Design/SettingThis study used observational analysis of prospectively collected data. Patient SampleThe sample consisted of cases from the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD). Outcome MeasuresNumeric rating scale for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, return to work, and perioperative morbidity were the outcome measures. MethodsThe N2QOD is a prospective PROs registry enrolling patients undergoing elective spine surgery from 60 hospitals in 27 US states via representative sampling. We analyzed the N2QOD aggregate dataset (2010–2014) to identify one- and two-level lumbar interbody fusion procedures performed for lumbar stenosis or Grade 1 spondylolisthesis with 12 months' follow-up where surgical instrumentation and implant types were clearly identified. Perioperative and 1-year outcomes were compared between cases performed with MIS enabling technologies versus traditional open technologies before and after propensity matching. ResultsThere were 467 (24%) patients who underwent elective interbody lumbar fusion using MIS enabling technologies whereas 1,480 (76%) underwent the procedure using traditional open technologies. The MIS patients were slightly healthier (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade), had private insurance more frequently, and underwent two-level fusion less frequently. Unmatched, the MIS cohort was associated with reduced blood loss, a 0.7-day reduction in mean length of hospital stay, and 5% reduced need for post-discharge inpatient rehabilitation, but equivalent 90-day safety measures. After propensity matching, the MIS cohort remained associated with reduced blood loss and a shorter length of stay for one-level fusion (p<.05) but had equivalent length of stay for two-level fusion. Outcomes in all other 90-day safety measures were similar. In both unadjusted and propensity-matched comparison, MIS versus open technologies were associated with equivalent return to work, patient-reported pain, physical disability, and quality of life at 3 and 12 months' follow-up. ConclusionsIn a representative sampling registry of elective interbody lumbar spine fusion procedures spanning 27 US states, nearly a quarter of procedures performed from 2010 to 2014 used minimally invasive enabling technologies. Regardless of approach, interbody lumbar fusion was associated with significant and sustained improvements in all measured health domains. When used in everyday care by a wide spectrum of spine surgeons in non-research settings, the use of MIS technologies was associated with reduced intraoperative blood loss but only a half-day reduction in mean length of hospital stay for one-level fusions. Minimally invasive surgery was not associated with any improved perioperative safety measures or 12-month outcomes. Although MIS enabling technologies may increase some in-hospital care efficiencies, MIS clinical outcomes are similar to open surgery for patients undergoing one- and two-level interbody lumbar fusions.

P179 - Predictive Model for Return to Work after Elective Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: An Analysis From National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database Registry

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Current costs associated with spine care are unsustainable. The productivity loss and time away from work in gainfully employed patients contributes greatly to the financial burden. Therefore, it is vital to identify the factors associated with returning to work after lumbar spine surgery.

189 - Predictive Model for Discharge to Home after Elective Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: An Analysis from National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database Registry

189 - Predictive Model for Discharge to Home after Elective Surgery for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: An Analysis from National Neurosurgery Quality Outcomes Database Registry

Comparing clinical outcomes of repeat discectomy versus fusion for recurrent disc herniation utilizing the N2QOD

OBJECTIVE Recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) is a significant cause of morbidity in patients undergoing lumbar discectomy and has been reported to occur in up to 18% of cases. While repeat discectomy is often successful in treating these patients, concern over repeat RLDH may lead surgeons to advocate instrumented fusion even in the absence of instability. The authors' goal was to compare clinical outcomes for patients undergoing repeat discectomy versus instrumented fusion for RLDH. METHODS The authors used the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD) to assess outcomes of patients who underwent repeat discectomy versus instrumented fusion at a single institution from 2012 to 2015. Primary outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) measures. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, discharge status, and hospital charges. RESULTS The authors identified 25 repeat discectomy and 12 instrumented fusion patients with 3- and 12-month follow-up records. The groups had similar ODI and VAS scores and QALY measurements at 3 and 12 months. Patients in the instrumented fusion group had significantly longer hospitalizations (3.7 days vs 1.0 days, p < 0.001) and operative times (229.6 minutes vs 82.7 minutes, p < 0.001). They were also more likely to be female (p = 0.020) and to be discharged to inpatient rehabilitation instead of home (p = 0.036). Hospital charges for the instrumented fusion group were also significantly higher ($54,458.29 vs $11,567.05, p < 0.001). Rates of reoperation were higher in the repeat discectomy group (12% vs 0%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.211). CONCLUSIONS Repeat discectomy and instrumented fusion result in similar clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up. Patients undergoing repeat discectomy had significantly shorter operative times and length of stay, and they incurred dramatically lower hospital charges. They were also less likely to require acute rehabilitation postoperatively. Further research is needed to compare these two management strategies.

Back pain improvement after decompression without fusion or stabilization in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and clinically significant preoperative back pain.

OBJECTIVE The relief of leg symptoms by surgical decompression for lumbar stenosis is well supported by the literature. Less is known about the effect on back pain. Some surgeons believe that the relief of back pain should not be an expected outcome of decompression and that substantial back pain may be a contraindication to decompression only; therefore, stabilization may be recommended for patients with substantial preoperative back pain even in the absence of well-accepted indications for stabilization such as spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or sagittal malalignment. The purpose of this study is to determine if patients with lumbar stenosis and substantial back pain-in the absence of spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or sagittal malalignment-can obtain significant improvement after decompression without fusion or stabilization. METHODS Analysis of the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD) identified 726 patients with lumbar stenosis (without spondylolisthesis or scoliosis) and a baseline back pain score ≥ 5 of 10 who underwent surgical decompression only. No patient was reported to have significant spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or sagittal malalignment. Standard demographic and surgical variables were collected, as well as patient outcomes including back and leg pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D) at baseline and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS The mean age of the cohort was 65.6 years, and 407 (56%) patients were male. The mean body mass index was 30.2 kg/m2, and 40% of patients had 2-level decompression, 29% had 3-level decompression, 24% had 1-level decompression, and 6% had 4-level decompression. The mean estimated blood loss was 130 ml. The mean operative time was 100.85 minutes. The vast majority of discharges (88%) were routine home discharges. At 3 and 12 months postoperatively, there were significant improvements from baseline for back pain (7.62 to 3.19 to 3.66), leg pain (7.23 to 2.85 to 3.07), EQ-5D (0.55 to 0.76 to 0.75), and ODI (49.11 to 27.20 to 26.38). CONCLUSIONS Through the 1st postoperative year, patients with lumbar stenosis-without spondylolisthesis, scoliosis, or sagittal malalignment-and clinically significant back pain improved after decompression-only surgery.

Can the anxiety domain of EQ-5D and mental health items from SF-36 help predict outcomes after surgery for lumbar degenerative disorders?

OBJECTIVE Studies have shown that anxious or depressed patients may have poorer outcomes after lumbar fusion. These conclusions were drawn from questionnaires specifically designed to measure anxiety and depression. The objective of this study is to determine if responses to the EQ-5D anxiety/depression domain or the items used to calculate the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Mental Component Summary (MCS) can predict outcomes after lumbar fusion surgery. METHODS Patients enrolled in the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database from a single center with 1-year follow-up were identified. The outcomes collected include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EQ-5D, SF-36, and the back- and leg-pain numeric rating scales (range 0-10). Linear regression modeling was performed to predict the 1-year ODI scores using the EQ-5D anxiety/depression domain and the 14 items used to calculate SF-36 MCS. RESULTS Complete data were available for 312 (88%) of 353 eligible patients. The mean patient age was 58.5 years, 175 (56%) patients were women, and 52 patients were smokers. After controlling for other factors, the item in the SF-36 that asks "Have you felt downhearted and depressed?" is the strongest predictor of the 1-year ODI score (r(2) = 0.191; p = 0.000) and 1-year EQ-5D score (r(2) = 0.205; p = 0.000). Neither the EQ-5D anxiety/depression domain nor the diagnoses of anxiety or depression were predictors of 1-year outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Patient responses to SF-36 item "Have you felt downhearted and depressed?" account for 20% of the variability of the 1-year ODI and EQ-5D scores and can be used by clinicians to screen for anxiety or depression in patients prior to lumbar fusion surgery. Clinicians may offer psychological support to these patients preoperatively in order to improve treatment outcomes.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database for Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

A retrospective database review. The aim of this study was to compare data on various pain and functional outcomes for patients who underwent minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MiTLIF) and those who had open TLIF to better delineate which patients may benefit from each procedure. TLIF is a highly successful technique for the treatment of patients with degenerative instability or deformity. Minimally invasive approaches have been developed in an effort to improve outcomes by reducing tissue trauma and minimizing surgical time and blood loss. Although these approaches have been compared in the literature, there continues to be a debate about which patients may benefit from each procedure, and there is a dearth of information regarding short-term outcomes such as disposition status. We used the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD) to assess outcomes of patients who underwent open or MiTLIF at a single institution from 2012 to 2014. Primary outcomes included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, blood loss, discharge status, and return to work. We identified 98 patients with 3- and 12-month follow-up records. The open and MiTLIF groups had similar improvements in ODI and VAS at 3 and 12 months. MiTLIF patients had a significantly longer hospital stay (5.0 vs. 3.8 days for open TLIF, P < 0.001) and were more likely to discharge to a location other than home (P < 0.021). Open TLIF patients had shorter mean operative time (235 vs. 329 minutes for MiTLIF, P < 0.001) and more blood loss (307 vs. 120.2 mL for MiTLIF, P < 0.001). Although each approach demonstrated advantages and disadvantages, outcome measures at short-term follow-up were largely equivalent, suggesting that the selection of procedure should be based on which approach will offer the superior individual outcome. 4.

The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database Qualified Clinical Data Registry: 2015 measure specifications and rationale.

Meaningful quality measurement and public reporting have the potential to facilitate targeted outcome improvement, practice-based learning, shared decision making, and effective resource utilization. Recent developments in national quality reporting programs, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) reporting option, have enhanced the ability of specialty groups to develop relevant quality measures of the care they deliver. QCDRs will complete the collection and submission of Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) quality measures data on behalf of individual eligible professionals. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N(2)QOD) offers 21 non-PQRS measures, initially focused on spine procedures, which are the first specialty-specific measures for neurosurgery. Securing QCDR status for N(2)QOD is a tremendously important accomplishment for our specialty. This program will ensure that data collected through our registries and used for PQRS is meaningful for neurosurgeons, related spine care practitioners, their patients, and other stakeholders. The 2015 N(2)QOD QCDR is further evidence of neurosurgery's commitment to substantively advancing the health care quality paradigm. The following manuscript outlines the measures now approved for use in the 2015 N(2)QOD QCDR. Measure specifications (measure type and descriptions, related measures, if any, as well as relevant National Quality Strategy domain[s]) along with rationale are provided for each measure.

Neurosurgery value and quality in the context of the Affordable Care Act: a policy perspective.

Neurosurgeons provide direct individualized care to patients. However, the majority of regulations affecting the relative value of patient-related care are drafted by policy experts whose focus is typically system- and population-based. A central, prospectively gathered, national outcomes-related database serves as neurosurgery's best opportunity to bring patient-centered outcomes to the policy arena. In this study the authors analyze the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the determination of quality and value in neurosurgery care through the scope, language, and terminology of policy experts. The methods by which the ACA came into law and the subsequent quality implications this legislation has for neurosurgery will be discussed. The necessity of neurosurgical patient-oriented clinical registries will be discussed in the context of imminent and dramatic reforms related to medical cost containment. In the policy debate moving forward, the strength of neurosurgery's argument will rest on data, unity, and proactiveness. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N(2)QOD) allows neurosurgeons to generate objective data on specialty-specific value and quality determinations; it allows neurosurgeons to bring the patient-physician interaction to the policy debate.

The present and future of quality measures and public reporting in neurosurgery.

Quality measurement and public reporting are intended to facilitate targeted outcome improvement, practice-based learning, shared decision making, and effective resource utilization. However, regulatory implementation has created a complex network of reporting requirements for physicians and medical practices. These include Medicare's Physician Quality Reporting System, Electronic Health Records Meaningful Use, and Value-Based Payment Modifier programs. The common denominator of all these initiatives is that to avoid penalties, physicians must meet "generic" quality standards that, in the case of neurosurgery and many other specialties, are not pertinent to everyday clinical practice and hold specialists accountable for care decisions outside of their direct control. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has recently authorized alternative quality reporting mechanisms for the Physician Quality Reporting System, which allow registries to become subspecialty-reporting mechanisms under the Qualified Clinical Data Registry (QCDR) program. These programs further give subspecialties latitude to develop measures of health care quality that are relevant to the care provided. As such, these programs amplify the power of clinical registries by allowing more accurate assessment of practice patterns, patient experiences, and overall health care value. Neurosurgery has been at the forefront of these developments, leveraging the experience of the National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database to create one of the first specialty-specific QCDRs. Recent legislative reform has continued to change this landscape and has fueled optimism that registries (including QCDRs) and other specialty-driven quality measures will be a prominent feature of federal and private sector quality improvement initiatives. These physician- and patient-driven methods will allow neurosurgery to underscore the value of interventions, contribute to the development of sustainable health care solutions, and actively participate in meaningful quality initiatives for the benefit of the patients served.

Lumbar Surgery in the Elderly Provides Significant Health Benefit in the US Health Care System: Patient-Reported Outcomes in 4370 Patients From the N2QOD Registry.

Lumbar spine degenerative pathologies are prevalent in the United States. The health benefit of spine surgery in the elderly has been questioned. To compare effectiveness, morbidity, and quality of care associated with surgical management of degenerative lumbar spinal disorders in elderly vs nonelderly patients. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database registry prospectively collects measures of surgical safety and patient-reported outcomes for 1 year after surgery. All lumbar surgery cases were queried to compare the elderly surgical population (70 years of age and older) and associated outcomes with patients younger than 70 years of age. A total of 4370 lumbar spine surgeries were enrolled in National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database with 1-year follow-up; 1020 (23%) were elderly patients. The elderly had an increased incidence of heart disease, osteoporosis, high-risk anesthesia grade (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3/4), more than 3 level surgery, ambulation assist device use, unemployment, female sex, white race, and stenosis as a diagnosis. The elderly patients had a lower body mass index, incidence of anxiety/depression, liability/workers' compensation claims, and disc herniation as a diagnosis. Length of hospitalization and postdischarge inpatient rehabilitation/nursing facility was significantly greater in the elderly. The incidence of surgical complications and 90-day hospital readmission were similar. Significant and equivalent improvements at 1 year in pain, disability, and quality of life were reported by both elderly and nonelderly patients overall and for each unique spine diagnosis. For all ages, lumbar spine surgery resulted in significant improvement in pain, disability, and quality of life. Elderly patients experienced equivalent and significant health benefit in all measured health domains without an increased rate of surgical complications or hospital readmissions. Elective lumbar spine surgery in the elderly provides significant gains in health status, justifying its continued use in this growing population.

The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): a collaborative North American outcomes registry to advance value-based spine care.

National Prospective Observational Registry. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 3.

The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD) Pilot: Interim Analysis of Registry Feasibility, Data Integrity and the Safety and Effectiveness of Surgical Spine Care

Feasibility, Data Integrity, and the Safety and Effectiveness of Surgical Spine Care A. Asher; C. Watridge; P. Mummaneni; J.Knightly; G. Oetting; N. Theodore; O. Gottfried; S. Khairi; M. Schmidt; M. Boakye; S. Kalkanis; D.Rabin; T. Ryken; G. Balturshot; J. Chadduck; D. Fassett; R. Reeder; C. Miller; T. Briggs; T. Grahm; B. Guthrie; J. F. Harrington; C. Shaffrey; E. Elowitz; K. Foley; S. Glassman; M. McGirt