Spine centers of excellence: a systematic review and single-institution description of a spine center of excellence.

Background: Centers of excellence (COEs) are interdisciplinary healthcare organizations created with the goal of improving health/economic outcomes in medical treatment for both individuals and health systems, compared to traditionally structured counterparts. Multiple studies have highlighted both societal/individual burdens associated with back pain, underscoring the importance of identifying new avenues for improving both cost/clinical outcomes for this patient population. Here, we utilize available literature to better characterize the features of a spine COE at a tertiary care center and determine the impact of COEs on patient satisfaction and outcomes. Methods: A systematic review describing spine COEs was performed. PubMed, OVID, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus were utilized for electronic literature search. Data including institution, department, pathologies treated, patient satisfaction scores, patient outcomes, and descriptions of the COE, were extracted and analyzed by two reviewers per full-text article. Inclusion criteria consisted of literature describing the organization, purpose, or outcomes of a spine COE, all publication types (except technical/operative report), adult or pediatric patients, publication from inception through September 2021. Exclusion criteria consisted of articles that do not discuss spinal COEs, technical/operative reports, studies unavailable in English language, unavailable full text, or non-human subjects. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: Five hundred and sixty-seven unique publications were obtained from the literature search. Of these articles, 20 were included and 547 were excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following full-text review of the 20 publications, 6 contained pertinent data. Quantitative data comparing COE versus non-COE was contradictory in comparing complication rates and episodic costs. Qualitative data included descriptions of spine COE features and cited improved patient care, technical advancements, and individualized care paths as positive aspects of the COE model. Mean risk of bias assessment was 3.67. Discussion: There is little evidence regarding if spine COEs provide an advantage over traditionally organized facilities. The current number and heterogeneity of publications, and lack of standardized metrics used to define a spinal COE are limiting factors. Spinal COE may offer higher value care, reduced complication rates and advancements in knowledge and technical skill.