Reliability of the spine adverse events severity system (SAVES) for individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury.

STUDY DESIGN: Test-retest analysis. OBJECTIVES: To determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Spine Adverse Events Severity System for Spinal Cord Injury (SAVES-SCI) in patients with traumatic SCI. SETTING: Quaternary care spine program in Vancouver, Canada. METHODS: Ten hypothetical patient cases were developed. The cases were completed by 10 raters (seven physicians, one nurse, one physiotherapist and one researcher) who were asked to identify and grade the severity of adverse events using SAVES-SCI twice with 1-week interval. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were calculated using kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: Intra-rater reliability for both identifying and grading AEs were high with all AEs (kappa greater than 0.6) except for bone implant, diathermy burn, massive blood loss, myocardial infarction, neurological deterioration, pressure ulcer, return to operating room and tracheostomy requirement. The inter-rater reliability measured with ICC were all above 0.6 for identifying and grading intraoperative, pre and postoperative AEs and consequences of SCI. CONCLUSIONS: The SAVES-SCI demonstrated acceptable intra-and inter-rater reliability for a majority of the AEs. Further clarification and definition of some of the AEs as well as provision of sample training cases for clinicians would assist in reducing measurement errors. The SAVES-SCI is a useful tool to assess and capture AEs in patients with acute traumatic SCI.

Knowledge translation and implementation in spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review examining the effectiveness of knowledge translation (KT) interventions in changing clinical practice and patient outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for studies published from January 1980 to July 2012 that reported and evaluated an implemented KT intervention in spinal cord injury (SCI) care. We reviewed and summarized results from studies that documented the implemented KT intervention, its impact on changing clinician behavior and patient outcomes as well as the facilitators and barriers encountered during the implementation. RESULTS: A total of 13 articles featuring 10 studies were selected and abstracted from 4650 identified articles. KT interventions included developing and implementing patient care protocols, providing clinician education and incorporating outcome measures into clinical practice. The methods (or drivers) to facilitate the implementation included organizing training sessions for clinical staff, introducing computerized reminders and involving organizational leaders. The methodological quality of studies was mostly poor. Only 3 out of 10 studies evaluated the success of the implementation using statistical analyses, and all 3 reported significant behavior change. Out of the 10 studies, 6 evaluated the effect of the implementation on patient outcomes using statistical analyses, with 4 reporting significant improvements. The commonly cited facilitators and barriers were communication and resources, respectively. CONCLUSION: The field of KT in SCI is in its infancy with only a few relevant publications. However, there is some evidence that KT interventions may change clinician behavior and improve patient outcomes. Future studies should ensure rigorous study methods are used to evaluate KT interventions.

Use of the Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury. A comparison with institutional ICD-10 coding for the identification of acute care adverse events.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort comparison. OBJECTIVES: To compare the previously validated Spine Adverse Events Severity system (SAVES) with International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes (ICD-10) codes for identifying adverse events (AEs) in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI). SETTING: Quaternary Care Spine Program. METHODS: Patients discharged between 2006 and 2010 were identified from our prospective registry. Two consecutive cohorts were created based on the system used to record acute care AEs; one used ICD-10 coding by hospital coders and the other used SAVES data prospectively collected by a multidisciplinary clinical team. The ICD-10 codes were appropriately mapped to the SAVES. There were 212 patients in the ICD-10 cohort and 173 patients in the SAVES cohort. Analyses were adjusted to account for the different sample sizes, and the two cohorts were comparable based on age, gender and motor score. RESULTS: The SAVES system identified twice as many AEs per person as ICD-10 coding. Fifteen unique AEs were more reliably identified using SAVES, including neuropathic pain (32 × more; P<0.001), urinary tract infections (1.4 × ; P<0.05), pressure sores (2.9 × ; P<0.001) and intra-operative AEs (2.3 × ; P<0.05). Eight of these 15 AEs more frequently identified by SAVES significantly impacted length of stay (P<0.05). Risk factors such as patient age and severity of paralysis were more reliably correlated to AEs collected through SAVES than ICD-10. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the SAVES system for patients with TSCI captured more individuals experiencing AEs and more AEs per person compared with ICD-10 codes. This study demonstrates the utility of prospectively collecting AE data using validated tools.