Operative cancellations adversely affect patient health and impose resource strain on the healthcare system. Here, our objective was to describe neurosurgical cancellations at five Canadian academic institutions.

The Canadian Neurosurgery Research Collaborative performed a retrospective cohort study capturing neurosurgical procedure cancellation data at five Canadian academic centres, during the period between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. Demographics, procedure type, reason for cancellation, admission status and case acuity were collected. Cancellation rates were compared on the basis of demographic data, procedural data and between centres.

Overall, 7,734 cancellations were captured across five sites. Mean age of the aggregate cohort was 57.1 ± 17.2 years. The overall procedure cancellation rate was 18.2%. The five-year neurosurgical operative cancellation rate differed between Centre 1 and 2 (Centre 1: 25.9%; Centre 2: 13.0%, p = 0.008). Female patients less frequently experienced procedural cancellation. Elective, outpatient and spine procedures were more often cancelled. Reasons for cancellation included surgeon-related factors (28.2%), cancellation for a higher acuity case (23.9%), patient condition (17.2%), other factors (17.0%), resource availability (7.0%), operating room running late (6.4%) and anaesthesia-related (0.3%). When clustered, the reason for cancellation was patient-related in 17.2%, staffing-related in 28.5% and operational or resource-related in 54.3% of cases.

Neurosurgical operative cancellations were common and most often related to operational or resource-related factors. Elective, outpatient and spine procedures were more often cancelled. These findings highlight areas for optimizing efficiency and targeted quality improvement initiatives.

To describe experience using general practitioners (GPs), with an extended role (GPwER) in spinal medicine, to expedite assessment, triage, and management of patients referred from primary care for specialist spinal surgical opinion.

Low back and neck pain are common conditions in primary care. Indiscriminate or inappropriate referral to a spinal surgeon contributes to long waiting times. Previous attempts at triaging patients who really require a surgical opinion have used practice nurses, physiotherapists, clinical algorithms, and interdisciplinary screening clinics.

Within the setting of an independent spinal care centre, we have used GPs specially trained in spinal practice to expedite the assessment and triage of new referrals between 2015 and 2021. We reviewed feedback from a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire and the postgraduate backgrounds, training, practice with regard to triage of new referrals, and experiences of the GPs who were recruited

Six GPwER had a mean of 26 years of postgraduate experience before appointment (range 10–44 years). The first four GPwER, appointed between 2015 and 2018, underwent an ad hoc in-house, interdisciplinary training programme and saw 2994 new patients between 2016 and 2020. After GPwER, assessment in only 18.9% (range 12.6 to 22.7%) of these patients was a spinal surgical opinion deemed necessary. Waiting times to see the spinal surgeon remained at 6–8 weeks despite a three-fold annual increase (from 340 to 1058) in new referrals. A Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire revealed high levels of satisfaction with the performances of the GPwER across seven dimensions. A dedicated training programme was designed in 2020, and the last two appointees underwent 20 h of clinical teaching prior to practice. Initial experience using GPwER, here termed ‘Spinal Clinicians’, suggests they are efficient at screening for patients needing spinal surgical referral. Establishing a recognised training programme, assessment, and certification for these practitioners are the next challenges.

Computer-assisted navigation (CAN) improves the accuracy of spinal instrumentation in vertebral fractures and degenerative spine disease; however, it is not widely adopted because of lack of training, high capital costs, workflow hindrances, and accuracy concerns. We characterize shifts in the use of spinal CAN over time and across disciplines in a single-payer health system, and assess the impact of intra-operative CAN on trainee proficiency across Canada.

A prospectively maintained Ontario database of patients undergoing spinal instrumentation from 2005 to 2014 was reviewed retrospectively. Data were collected on treated pathology, spine region, surgical approach, institution type, and surgeon specialty. Trainee proficiency with CAN was assessed using an electronic questionnaire distributed across 15 Canadian orthopedic surgical and neurosurgical programs.

In our provincial cohort, 16.8% of instrumented fusions were CAN-guided. Navigation was used more frequently in academic institutions (15.9% vs. 12.3%, p<0.001) and by neurosurgeons than orthopedic surgeons (21.0% vs. 12.4%, p<0.001). Of residents and fellows 34.1% were fully comfortable using spinal CAN, greater for neurosurgical than orthopedic surgical trainees (48.1% vs. 11.8%, p=0.008). The use of CAN increased self-reported proficiency in thoracic instrumentation for all trainees by 11.0% (p=0.036), and in atlantoaxial instrumentation for orthopedic trainees by 18.0% (p=0.014).

Spinal CAN is used most frequently by neurosurgeons and in academic centers. Most spine surgical trainees are not fully comfortable with the use of CAN, but report an increase in technical comfort with CAN guidance particularly for thoracic instrumentation. Increased education in spinal CAN for trainees, particularly at the fellowship stage and, specifically, for orthopedic surgery, may improve adoption.