Institution-Based Quality and Safety Improvement Initiatives in Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review.

IF 2.4 Q2 SURGERY
JBJS Reviews Pub Date : 2025-05-27 eCollection Date: 2025-05-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00195
Zonglin He, Meiru An, Dong Chen, Huili Peng, Huiren Tao, Kenneth M C Cheung
{"title":"Institution-Based Quality and Safety Improvement Initiatives in Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Zonglin He, Meiru An, Dong Chen, Huili Peng, Huiren Tao, Kenneth M C Cheung","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Improving patient safety and healthcare quality is necessary to advance value-based health care. Spine surgery is complex, entailing joint efforts between different disciplines. This scoping review aimed to map the research on establishing and implementing institution-based quality improvement (QI) initiatives in spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies were identified in electronic searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Qualitative or quantitative studies that report the implementation of QI programs that occurred in or covered spine surgery were included; studies that did not describe the establishment, implementations, impacts, barriers, and facilitators of QI initiatives were excluded. Three reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies, and 2 reviewers extracted data and conducted a quality assessment of full-text articles. Studies were categorized according to dimensions of quality (timely, effective, patient-centered, efficient, equitable, and safe), and quality appraisal was conducted using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search from the 3 databases yielded 2,876 returns; after removing duplicates, there were 1,274 in total. After screening, 228 records were entered into a full-text review, resulting in 133 records included in the review. Specifically, 88 addressed aspects of efficiency, 74 on safety, 32 on improving effectiveness, 23 on patient-centeredness, 7 on timeliness, and 1 on equity. Of the studies included, 71 rely on retrospective audits, 19 are prospective, and only 8 are interventional trials. Only 67 QI initiatives leveraged the advantages of multidisciplinary teams or the rigor of evidence-based protocols. Study gaps include limited follow-up, small sample sizes, and lack of comprehensive assessment using both objective measures and patient-reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This scoping review maps the current research on developing and implementing institution-based QI initiatives in spine surgery. Although most of the initiatives reported show improvement in the quality of health care and patient safety from multiple aspects, the sustainability of these initiatives remains unknown, and further studies are needed to trace the long-term effects and generalizability of these initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":47098,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Reviews","volume":"13 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12101897/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Improving patient safety and healthcare quality is necessary to advance value-based health care. Spine surgery is complex, entailing joint efforts between different disciplines. This scoping review aimed to map the research on establishing and implementing institution-based quality improvement (QI) initiatives in spine surgery.

Methods: Studies were identified in electronic searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Qualitative or quantitative studies that report the implementation of QI programs that occurred in or covered spine surgery were included; studies that did not describe the establishment, implementations, impacts, barriers, and facilitators of QI initiatives were excluded. Three reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies, and 2 reviewers extracted data and conducted a quality assessment of full-text articles. Studies were categorized according to dimensions of quality (timely, effective, patient-centered, efficient, equitable, and safe), and quality appraisal was conducted using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guidelines.

Results: The search from the 3 databases yielded 2,876 returns; after removing duplicates, there were 1,274 in total. After screening, 228 records were entered into a full-text review, resulting in 133 records included in the review. Specifically, 88 addressed aspects of efficiency, 74 on safety, 32 on improving effectiveness, 23 on patient-centeredness, 7 on timeliness, and 1 on equity. Of the studies included, 71 rely on retrospective audits, 19 are prospective, and only 8 are interventional trials. Only 67 QI initiatives leveraged the advantages of multidisciplinary teams or the rigor of evidence-based protocols. Study gaps include limited follow-up, small sample sizes, and lack of comprehensive assessment using both objective measures and patient-reported outcomes.

Conclusions: This scoping review maps the current research on developing and implementing institution-based QI initiatives in spine surgery. Although most of the initiatives reported show improvement in the quality of health care and patient safety from multiple aspects, the sustainability of these initiatives remains unknown, and further studies are needed to trace the long-term effects and generalizability of these initiatives.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

基于机构的脊柱外科质量和安全改进措施:范围综述。
背景:改善患者安全和医疗保健质量是推进以价值为基础的医疗保健的必要条件。脊柱外科是复杂的,需要不同学科的共同努力。本综述旨在对建立和实施基于机构的脊柱外科质量改进(QI)计划的研究进行综述。方法:在PubMed、Web of Science和Scopus数据库中进行电子检索。包括报告脊柱外科中发生或覆盖的QI项目实施情况的定性或定量研究;没有描述QI计划的建立、实施、影响、障碍和促进因素的研究被排除在外。3名审稿人独立筛选检索到的研究,2名审稿人提取数据并对全文文章进行质量评估。根据质量维度(及时、有效、以患者为中心、高效、公平和安全)对研究进行分类,并使用质量改进报告标准卓越报告指南进行质量评估。结果:从3个数据库中检索得到2876个结果;除去重复项后,总共有1,274个。经筛选,228条记录进入全文综述,133条记录被纳入综述。具体而言,88项涉及效率方面,74项涉及安全方面,32项涉及提高有效性方面,23项涉及以患者为中心,7项涉及及时性方面,1项涉及公平性方面。在纳入的研究中,71项依赖于回顾性审计,19项是前瞻性的,只有8项是干预性试验。只有67个QI计划利用了多学科团队的优势或严格的循证协议。研究差距包括随访有限,样本量小,缺乏使用客观测量和患者报告结果的综合评估。结论:这篇范围综述描绘了目前在脊柱外科中发展和实施基于机构的QI倡议的研究。虽然报告的大多数举措表明从多个方面改善了医疗保健质量和患者安全,但这些举措的可持续性仍然未知,需要进一步研究以追踪这些举措的长期影响和推广。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JBJS Reviews
JBJS Reviews SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: JBJS Reviews is an innovative review journal from the publishers of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. This continuously published online journal provides comprehensive, objective, and authoritative review articles written by recognized experts in the field. Edited by Thomas A. Einhorn, MD, and a distinguished Editorial Board, each issue of JBJS Reviews, updates the orthopaedic community on important topics in a concise, time-saving manner, providing expert insights into orthopaedic research and clinical experience. Comprehensive reviews, special features, and integrated CME provide orthopaedic surgeons with valuable perspectives on surgical practice and the latest advances in the field within twelve subspecialty areas: Basic Science, Education & Training, Elbow, Ethics, Foot & Ankle, Hand & Wrist, Hip, Infection, Knee, Oncology, Pediatrics, Pain Management, Rehabilitation, Shoulder, Spine, Sports Medicine, Trauma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信