The Effect of a Multidisciplinary Spine Clinic on Time to Care in Patients with Chronic Back and/or Leg Pain: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Chronic back and leg pain are leading causes of disability worldwide. The purpose of this study was to compare the care in a unidisciplinary (USC) versus multidisciplinary (MSC) spine clinic, where patients are evaluated by different specialists during the same office visit. Adult patients presenting with a chief complaint of back and/or leg pain between June 2018 and July 2019 were assessed for eligibility. The main outcome measures included the first treatment recommendations, the time to treatment order, and the time to treatment occurrence. A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was performed on 874 patients (437 in each group). For all patients, the most common recommendation was physical therapy (41.4%), followed by injection (14.6%), and surgery (9.7%). Patients seen in the MSC were more likely to be recommended injection (p < 0.001) and less likely to be recommended surgery as first treatment (p = 0.001). They also had significantly shorter times to the injection order (log-rank test, p = 0.004) and the injection occurrence (log-rank test, p < 0.001). In this study, more efficient care for patients with back and/or leg pain was delivered in the MSC setting, which was evidenced by the shorter times to the injection order and occurrence. The impact of the MSC approach on patient satisfaction and health-related quality-of-life outcome measures warrants further investigation.

A Multidisciplinary Spine Surgical Indications Conference Leads to Alterations in Surgical Plans in a Significant Number of Cases: A Case Series.

STUDY DESIGN: Case series. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a multidisciplinary spine surgery indications conference (MSSIC) on surgical planning for elective spine surgeries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Identifying methods for pairing the proper patient with the optimal intervention is of the utmost importance for improving spine care and patient outcomes. Prior studies have evaluated the utility of multidisciplinary spine conferences for patient management, but none have evaluated the impact of a MSSIC on surgical planning and decision making. METHODS: We implemented a mandatory weekly MSSIC with all spine surgeons at our institution. Each elective spine surgery in the upcoming week is presented. Subsequently, a group consensus decision is achieved regarding the best treatment option based on the expertise and opinions of the participating surgeons. We reviewed cases presented at the MSSIC from September 2019 to December 2019. We compared the surgeon's initial proposed surgery for a patient with the conference attendees' consensus decision on the best treatment and measured compliance rates with the group's recommended treatment. RESULTS: The conference reviewed 100 patients scheduled for elective spine surgery at our indications conference during the study period. Surgical plans were recommended for alteration in 19 cases (19%) with the proportion statistically significant from zero indicated by a binomial test (P < 0.001). The median absolute change in the invasiveness index of the altered procedures was 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-4). Participating surgeons complied with the group's recommendation in 96.5% of cases. CONCLUSION: In conjunction with other multidisciplinary methods, MSSICs can lead to surgical planning alterations in a significant number of cases. This could potentially result in better selection of surgical candidates and procedures for particular patients. Although long-term patient outcomes remain to be evaluated, this care model will likely play an integral role in optimizing the care spine surgeons provide patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.