Implementation of the Canadian C-spine rule reduces cervical spine x-ray rate for alert patients with potential neck injury

Effectiveness of implementation strategies for increasing clinicians' use of five validated imaging decision rules for musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Strategies to enhance clinicians' adherence to validated imaging decision rules and increase the appropriateness of imaging remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of various implementation strategies for increasing clinicians' use of five validated imaging decision rules (Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study and Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were experimental, quasi-experimental study designs comprising randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials, and single-arm trials (i.e. prospective observational studies) of implementation interventions in any care setting. The search encompassed electronic databases up to March 11, 2024, including MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of studies independently using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was clinicians' use of decision rules. Secondary outcomes included imaging use (indicated, non-indicated and overall) and knowledge of the rules.

RESULTS

We included 22 studies (5-RCTs, 1-non-RCT and 16-single-arm trials), conducted in emergency care settings in six countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland and France). One RCT suggested that reminders may be effective at increasing clinicians' use of Ottawa Ankle Rules but may also increase the use of ankle radiography. Two RCTs that combined multiple intervention strategies showed mixed results for ankle imaging and head CT use. One combining educational meetings and materials on Ottawa Ankle Rules reduced ankle injury imaging among ED physicians, while another, with similar efforts plus clinical practice guidelines and reminders for the Canadian CT Head Rule, increased CT imaging for head injuries. For knowledge, one RCT suggested that distributing guidelines had a limited short-term impact but improved clinicians' long-term knowledge of the Ottawa Ankle Rules.

CONCLUSION

Interventions such as pop-up reminders, educational meetings, and posters may improve adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, and Canadian CT Head Rule. Reminders may reduce non-indicated imaging for knee and ankle injuries. The uncertain quality of evidence indicates the need for well-conducted RCTs to establish effectiveness of implementation strategies.

Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in paediatric trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Paediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma is rare but can have severe consequences. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) have been developed to guide clinical decision-making, minimise unnecessary tests and associated risks, whilst detecting all significant CSIs. Several validated CDRs are used to guide imaging decision-making in adults following blunt trauma and clinical criteria have been proposed as possible paediatric-specific CDRs. Little information is known about their accuracy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of CDRs or sets of clinical criteria, alone or in comparison with each other, for the evaluation of CSI following blunt trauma in children.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases from 1 January 2015 to 13 December 2022. As we expanded the index test eligibility for this review update, we searched the excluded studies from the previous version of the review for eligibility. We contacted field experts to identify ongoing studies and studies potentially missed by the search. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional or cohort designs (retrospective and prospective) and randomised controlled trials that compared the diagnostic accuracy of any CDR or clinical criteria compared with a reference standard for the evaluation of paediatric CSI following blunt trauma. We included studies evaluating one CDR or comparing two or more CDRs (directly and indirectly). We considered X-ray, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine, and clinical clearance/follow-up as adequate reference standards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, and carried out eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment. A third review author arbitrated. We extracted data on study design, participant characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, index test, target condition, reference standard and data (diagnostic two-by-two tables) and calculated and plotted sensitivity and specificity on forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We assessed methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Version 2 tool. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies with 21,379 enrolled participants, published between 2001 and 2021. Prevalence of CSI ranged from 0.5% to 1.85%. Seven CDRs were evaluated. Three studies reported on direct comparisons of CDRs. One study (973 participants) directly compared the accuracy of three index tests with the sensitivities of NEXUS, Canadian C-Spine Rule and the PECARN retrospective criteria being 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00), respectively. The specificities were 0.56 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.59), 0.52 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.55) and 0.32 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.35), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). One study (4091 participants) compared the accuracy of the PECARN retrospective criteria with the Leonard de novo model; the sensitivities were 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97), respectively. The specificities were 0.46 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.47) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.52) (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively). One study (270 participants) compared the accuracy of two NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) head injury guidelines; the sensitivity of the CG56 guideline was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) compared to 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) with the CG176 guideline. The specificities were 0.46 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.52) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), respectively (very low-certainty evidence). Two additional studies were indirect comparison studies. One study (3065 participants) tested the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria; the sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.21) (low-certainty evidence). One retrospective study (12,537 participants) evaluated the PEDSPINE criteria and found a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.99) and specificity of 0.70 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.72) (very low-certainty evidence). We did not pool data within the broader CDR categories or investigate heterogeneity due to the small quantity of data and the clinical heterogeneity of studies. Two studies were at high risk of bias. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification pending further information and two ongoing studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of CDRs to detect CSIs in children following blunt trauma, particularly for children under eight years of age. Although most studies had a high sensitivity, this was often achieved at the expense of low specificity and should be interpreted with caution due to a small number of CSIs and wide CIs. Well-designed, large studies are required to evaluate the accuracy of CDRs for the cervical spine clearance in children following blunt trauma, ideally in direct comparison with each other.

Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Spinal Cord Protection: 2024 Update

The Wilderness Medical Society reconvened an expert panel to update best practice guidelines for spinal cord protection during trauma management. This panel, with membership updated in 2023, was charged with the development of evidence-based guidelines for management of the injured or potentially injured spine in wilderness environments. Recommendations are made regarding several parameters related to spinal cord protection. These recommendations are graded based on the quality of supporting evidence and balance the benefits and risks/burdens for each parameter according to American College of Chest Physicians methodology. Key recommendations include the concept that interventions should be goal-oriented (spinal cord/column protection in the context of overall patient and provider safety) rather than technique-oriented (immobilization). An evidence-based, goal-oriented approach excludes the immobilization of suspected spinal injuries via rigid collars or backboards.

What works for and what hinders deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice? A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Low-value care can harm patients and healthcare systems. Despite a decade of global endeavours, low value care has persisted. Identification of barriers and enablers is essential for effective deimplementation of low-value care. This scoping review is an evidence summary of barriers, enablers and features of effective interventions for deimplementation of low-value care in emergency medicine practice worldwide.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, CINAHL, Embase, EMCare, Scopus and grey literature were searched from inception to 5 December 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Primary studies which employed qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods approaches to explore deimplementation of low-value care in an EM setting and reported barriers, enablers or interventions were included. Reviews, protocols, perspectives, comments, opinions, editorials, letters to editors, news articles, books, chapters, policies, guidelines and animal studies were excluded. No language limits were applied.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Study selection, data collection and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Barriers, enablers and interventions were mapped to the domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality assessment.

RESULTS

The search yielded 167 studies. A majority were quantitative studies (90%, 150/167) that evaluated interventions (86%, 143/167). Limited provider abilities, diagnostic uncertainty, lack of provider insight, time constraints, fear of litigation, and patient expectations were the key barriers. Enablers included leadership commitment, provider engagement, provider training, performance feedback to providers and shared decision-making with patients. Interventions included one or more of the following facets: education, stakeholder engagement, audit and feedback, clinical decision support, nudge, clinical champions and training. Multifaceted interventions were more likely to be effective than single-faceted interventions. Effectiveness of multifaceted interventions was influenced by fidelity of the intervention facets. Use of behavioural change theories such as the Theoretical Domains Framework in the published studies appeared to enhance the effectiveness of interventions to deimplement low-value care.

CONCLUSION

High-fidelity, multifaceted interventions that incorporated education, stakeholder engagement, audit/feedback and clinical decision support, were administered daily and lasted longer than 1 year were most effective in achieving deimplementation of low-value care in emergency departments. This review contributes the best available evidence to date, but further rigorous, theory-informed, qualitative and mixed-methods studies are needed to supplement the growing body of evidence to effectively deimplement low-value care in emergency medicine practice.

ALGORITHMS FOR CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE CERVICAL SPINE IN PATIENTS WITH SEVERE TRAUMA: A MIXED-METHOD ANALYZIS

ABSTRACT Objective: Cervical trauma is an important cause of morbidity and mortality, affecting 2% of patients admitted to emergency units. Therefore, this study aims to compare the use of two clinical cervical spine evaluation algorithms, the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) and the National Emergency X-radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS). Methods: A descriptive study of the use of the two algorithms by medical residents in the initial assessment of severely traumatized patients admitted to the regional emergency unit was conducted. The evaluation of the indication for imaging tests and the positive predictive value of the algorithms were the parameters analyzed. Finally, the residents answered a questionnaire evaluating the applicability, degree of confidence and advantages of both flowcharts. Results: There was no significant difference between the number of indications for imaging or their predictive values. In the analysis of the questionnaires, the CCR proved to be more reliable and the NEXUS more applicable, and the positive and negative points of applying each of them were highlighted. Conclusion: It is concluded that the two methods are similar in detecting injuries and optimizing the use of imaging exams, being equally indicated to evaluate cervical trauma. However, the technical specifics of each must be taken into account when deciding which to use. Level of evidence IV; Descriptive Study.

Management of whiplash-associated disorder in the Italian emergency department: the feasibility of an evidence-based continuous professional development course provided by physiotherapists

PURPOSE

The management of whiplash and associated disorders (WAD) in the Italian Health System is still empirical and influenced by a single professional's expertise. Therefore, the purpose of our study is to describe a structured management changes in an Italian emergency department (ED) after an evidence based continuous professional development (CPD) course.

METHODS

A CPD course was organized by Orthopedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (OMPT) for personnel of ED in the hospital Girolamo Fracastoro (San Bonifacio, Verona, Italy), based on latest scientific evidence. Data regarding the number of X-Rays, computed tomography (CT) scan, orthopaedic referrals, neck collars and WAD IV (i.e., severe diagnosis) before and after the course were compared.

RESULTS

3066 cases of WAD have been analyzed in 2016 and 2185 in 2017/2018. The number of X-Rays dropped down from 15.1% to 13.5%; the CT scans increased from 1.3% to 1.9%; the WAD IV diagnosis increased from 0.7% to 1.6%; the orthopaedic referrals dropped from 1.5% to 1.1%; the collars prescription dropped from 8.8% to 2.5%.

CONCLUSION

An updated framework increased the efficiency of ED's maintaining the same level of safety (i.e., WAD IV diagnosis). Given that, it can also be argued that, in line with other countries, the implementation of an OMPT role within the ED multidisciplinary team is advised also in Italy.Implications for rehabilitationPhysiotherapists were commissioned to organize a management change of patients in an Italian Emergency Department clinical setting for the management of whiplash;Guidelines and other appropriate clinical rules facilitate the delivery of an evidence-based and more appropriate management and care plan;An inter-disciplinary continuous professional development course has the potential to positively influence patients' journey and to optimize the use of departmental resources;The involvement of other health professionals (e.g., Physiotherapists) within the Italian Emergency Department organizational chart might lead to further improvement of service provided.

Medical and allied health service use during acute and chronic post-injury periods in whiplash injured individuals

BACKGROUND

Individuals with whiplash associated disorder (WAD) frequently experience neck pain in addition to other physical, psychological and social symptoms. Consequently, treatment is sought from a variety of health professionals. The limited data available about health services use in this population are conflicting. This study aimed to characterise health service use in individuals with WAD from a motor vehicle crash.

METHODS

Medical (general practitioner (GP), medical specialist, emergency services (ED), radiology - x-ray, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound) and allied health service (physiotherapy, chiropractor, psychologist, osteopath, occupational therapy) use during acute (< 12 weeks) and chronic (12 weeks to 2 years) post-injury periods were analysed in adults claiming compensation for WAD in the no-fault jurisdiction of Victoria, Australia (n = 37,315).

RESULTS

Most WAD claimants had an acute post-injury health service payment (95%, n = 35,348), and approximately one-third (29%, n = 10,871) had a chronic post-injury health service payment. During an acute post-injury period, the most frequently compensated services were for: ED (82% of acute claimants), radiology (56%), and medical specialist (38%). Whereas, physiotherapy (64.4% of chronic claimants), GP (48.1%), and radiology (34.6%) were the most frequently paid services during the chronic period. Females received significantly more payments from physiotherapists (F = 23.4%, M = 18%, z = - 11.3, p < .001, r = 0.13), chiropractors (F = 7.4%, M = 5.6%, z = - 6.3, p < .001, r = 0.13), and psychologists (F = 4.2%, M = 2.8%, z = - 6.7, p < .001, r = 0.18); whereas, males received significantly more medical services payments from medical specialists (F = 41.8%, M = 43.8%, z = - 3.7, p < .001, r = 0.03), ED (F = 74.0%, M = 76.3%, z = - 4.9, p < .001, r = 0.03) and radiology (F = 58.3%, M = 60.1%, z = - 3.4, p < .001, r = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with WAD claimed for a range of health services. Radiology imaging use during the acute post-injury period, and physiotherapy and chiropractor service use during the chronic post-injury period appeared concordant with current WAD management guidelines. Conversely, low physiotherapy and chiropractic use during an acute post-injury period, and high radiology and medical specialists use during the chronic post-injury period appeared discordant with current guidelines. Strategies are needed to help inform medical health professionals of the current guidelines to promote early access to health professionals likely to provide an active approach to treatment, and to address unnecessary referral to radiology and medical specialists in individuals with on-going WAD.

Evidence-based care in high- and low-risk groups following whiplash injury: a multi-centre inception cohort study

Background

Studies aimed at improving the provision of evidence-based care (EBC) for the management of acute whiplash injuries have been largely successful. However, whether EBC is broadly provided and whether delivery of EBC varies based on risk of non-recovery, is uncertain. Receiving EBC should improve recovery, though this relationship has yet to be established. Further, mitigating the effect of EBC is the relationship with the practitioner, a phenomenon poorly understood in WAD. This study aimed to determine the proportion of individuals with whiplash, at differing baseline risk levels, receiving EBC. This study also aimed to determine whether receiving EBC and the therapeutic relationship were associated with recovery at 3 months post injury.

Methods

Participants with acute whiplash were recruited from public hospital emergency departments, private physiotherapy practices, and State Insurance Regulatory Authority (SIRA) databases. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline (demographics, risk of non-recovery) and 3-months (treatment received, risk identification, therapeutic relationship) post injury. Primary health care providers (HCPs) treating these participants also completed questionnaires at 3-months. Recovery was defined as neck disability index ≤4/50 and global perceived effect of ≥4/5.

Results

Two-hundred and twenty-eight people with acute whiplash, and 53 primary care practitioners were recruited. The majority of the cohort reported receiving EBC, with correct application of the Canadian C-spine rule (74%), and provision of active treatments (e.g. 89% receiving advice) high. Non-recommended (passive) treatments were also received by a large proportion of the cohort (e.g. 50% receiving massage). The therapeutic relationship was associated with higher odds of recovery, which was potentially clinically significant (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18–1.62). EBC was not significantly associated with recovery.

Conclusions

Guideline-based knowledge and practice has largely been retained from previous implementation strategies. However, recommendations for routine risk identification and tailored management, and reduction in the provision of passive treatment have not. The therapeutic relationship was identified as one of several important predictors of recovery, suggesting that clinicians must develop rapport and understanding with their patients to improve the likelihood of recovery.

Adoption and use of guidelines for whiplash: an audit of insurer and health professional practice in New South Wales, Australia

BACKGROUND

In Australia, the New South Wales (NSW) State Insurance Regulatory Authority has been continuously developing and implementing clinical practice guidelines to address the health and economic burden from whiplash associated disorders (WAD). Despite this, it is uncertain the extent to which the guidelines are followed. This study aimed to determine insurer and health professional compliance with recommendations of the 2014 NSW clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute WAD; and explore factors related to adherence.

METHODS

This was an observational study involving an audit of 288 randomly-selected claimant files from 4 insurance providers in NSW, Australia between March and October 2016. Data extracted included demographic, claim and injury details, use of health services, and insurer and health professional practices related to the guidelines. Analyses involved descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.

RESULTS

Median time for general practitioner medical consultation was 4 days post-injury and 25 days for physical treatment (e.g. physiotherapy). Rates of x-ray investigations were low (21.5%) and most patients (90%) were given active treatments in line with the guideline recommendations. The frequency of other practices recommended by the guidelines suggested lower guideline adherence in some areas such as; using the Quebec Task Force classification (19.9%); not using specialised imaging for WAD grades I and II (e.g. MRI, 45.8%); not using routine passive treatments (e.g. manual therapy, 94.0%); and assessing risk of non-recovery using relevant prognostic tools (e.g. Neck Disability Index, 12.8%). Over half of the claimants (59.0%) were referred to other professionals at 9-12 weeks post-injury, among which 31.2% were to psychologists and 68.8% to specialists (surgical specialists, 43.6%; WAD specialists, 20.5%). Legal representation and lodgment of full claim were associated with increased number of medical visits and imaging (ρ 0.23 to 0.3; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There is evidence of positive uptake of some guideline recommendations by insurers and health professionals; however, there are practices that are not compliant and might lead to poor health outcomes and greater treatment cost. Organisational, regulatory and professional implementation strategies may be considered to change practice, improve scheme performance and ultimately improve outcomes for people with WAD.

Effectiveness of Implementing Evidence-based Interventions to Reduce C-spine Image Ordering in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Appropriate use of imaging for adult patients with cervical spine (C-spine) injuries in the emergency department (ED) is a longstanding issue. Guidance for C-spine ordering exists; however, the effectiveness of the decision support implementation in the ED is not well studied. This systematic review examines the implementation and effectiveness of evidence-based interventions aimed at reducing C-spine imaging in adults presenting to the ED with neck trauma.

METHODS

Six electronic databases and the gray literature were searched. Comparative intervention studies were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers screened for study eligibility, study quality, and extracted data. The change in imaging was reported using individual odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effects.

RESULTS

A total of 990 unique citations were screened for relevance of which six before-after studies and one randomized controlled trial were included. None of the studies were assessed as high quality. Interventions consisted primarily of locally developed guidelines or established clinical decision rules such as the NEXUS or the Canadian C-spine rule. Overall, implementation of interventions aimed at reducing C-spine image ordering resulted in a statistically significant reduction in imaging (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.51-0.93); however, heterogeneity was high (I²  = 82%). Subgroup analysis revealed no differences between studies that specified enrolling alert and stable patients compared to unspecified trauma (p = 0.81) or between studies employing multifaceted versus nonmultifaceted interventions (p = 0.66). While studies generally provided details on implementation strategies (e.g., teaching sessions, pocket cards, posters, computerized decision support) the effectiveness of these implementation strategies were frequently not reported.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to reduce C-spine image ordering in adult patients seen in the ED with neck trauma. Given the national and international focus on improving appropriateness and reducing unnecessary C-spine imaging through campaigns such as Choosing Wisely, additional interventional research in this field is warranted.

Radiation Exposure From CT Scanning in the Resuscitative Phase of Trauma Care: A Level One Trauma Centre Experience

OBJECTIVES

The initial management of a trauma patient often involves imaging in the form of x-rays, computed tomography (CT) and other radiographic studies, which expose the patient to ionizing radiation, an entity known to cause tissue injury and malignancy at high doses. The purpose of this study was to use a calculation-based method to determine the radiation exposure of trauma patients undergoing trauma team activation in a Canadian tertiary-care trauma centre.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted using the Nova Scotia Provincial Trauma Registry. All patients age 16 years old and over who underwent trauma team activation between March 1, 2008 and March 1, 2009 were included. Patients who died prior to imaging tests were excluded. Dose reports for each CT were used to calculate a whole-body radiation dose for each patient.

RESULTS

There were 230 trauma team activations during the study period, of which 206 had CT imaging. Data were available for 162 patients. The mean whole-body radiation exposure for all patients was 24.4±10.3 mSv, which may correlate to one additional cancer death for every 100 trauma patients scanned.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma patients are exposed to significant amounts of radiation during their initial trauma work-up, which may increase the risk of fatal cancer. Clinicians who care for these patients must be aware of the radiation exposure, and take measures to limit radiation exposure of trauma patients.

Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in pediatric trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Pediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma is rare. Nonetheless, missing these injuries can have severe consequences. To prevent the overuse of radiographic imaging, two clinical decision tools have been developed: The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR). Both tools are proven to be accurate in deciding whether or not diagnostic imaging is needed in adults presenting for blunt trauma screening at the emergency department. However, little information is known about the accuracy of these triage tools in a pediatric population.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule in a pediatric population evaluated for CSI following blunt trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to 24 February 2015: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE Non-Indexed and In-Process Citations, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment, and the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all retrospective and prospective studies involving children following blunt trauma that evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria, the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both. Plain radiography, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine, and follow-up were considered as adequate reference standards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using the QUADAS-2 checklists. They extracted data on study design, patient characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinical parameters, target condition, reference standard, and the diagnostic two-by-two table. We calculated and plotted sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value in ROC space, and constructed forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Three cohort studies were eligible for analysis, including 3380 patients ; 96 children were diagnosed with CSI. One study evaluated the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule and the NEXUS criteria, and two studies evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria. The studies were of moderate quality. Due to the small number of included studies and the diverse outcomes of those studies, we could not describe a pooled estimate for the diagnostic test accuracy. The sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria of the individual studies was 0.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.90), 0.98 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). The specificity of the NEXUS criteria was 0.35 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.45), 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.62) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.21). For the Canadian C-spine Rule the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.15 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.23). Since the quantity of the data was small we were not able to investigate heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are currently few studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and CCR in children. At the moment, there is not enough evidence to determine the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule to detect CSI in pediatric trauma patients following blunt trauma. The confidence interval of the sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria between the individual studies showed a wide range, with a lower limit varying from 0.18 to 0.91 with a total of four false negative test results, meaning that if physicians use the NEXUS criteria in children, there is a chance of missing CSI. Since missing CSI could have severe consequences with the risk of significant morbidity, we consider that the NEXUS criteria are at best a guide to clinical assessment, with current evidence not supporting strict or protocolized adoption of the tool into pediatric trauma care. Moreover, we have to keep in mind that the sensitivity differs among several studies, and individual confidence intervals of these studies show a wide range. Our main conclusion is therefore that additional well-designed studies with large sample sizes are required to better evaluate the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both, in order to determine whether they are appropriate triage tools for the clearance of the cervical spine in children following blunt trauma.

Cervical Spine Clearance in Pediatric Trauma Centers: The Need for Standardization and an Evidence-based Protocol

BACKGROUND

Cervical spine clearance in the pediatric trauma patient represents a particularly challenging task. Unfortunately, standardized clearance protocols for pediatric cervical clearance are poorly reported in the literature and imaging recommendations demonstrate considerable variability. With the use of a web-based survey, this study aims to define the methods utilized by pediatric trauma centers throughout North America. Specific attention was given to the identification of personnel responsible for cervical spine care, diagnostic imaging modalities used, and the presence or absence of a written pediatric cervical spine clearance protocol.

METHODS

A 10-question electronic survey was given to members of the newly formed Pediatric Cervical Spine Study Group, all of whom are active POSNA members. The survey was submitted via the online service SurveyMonkey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/7NVVQZR). The survey assessed the respondent's institution demographics, such as trauma level and services primarily responsible for consultation and operative management of cervical spine injuries. In addition, respondents were asked to identify the protocols and primary imaging modality used for cervical spine clearance. Finally, respondents were asked if their institution had a documented cervical spine clearance protocol.

RESULTS

Of the 25 separate institutions evaluated, 21 were designated as level 1 trauma centers. Considerable variation was reported with regards to the primary service responsible for cervical spine clearance. General Surgery/Trauma (44%) is most commonly the primary service, followed by a rotating schedule (33%), Neurosugery (11%), and Orthopaedic Surgery (8%). Spine consults tend to be seen most commonly by a rotating schedule of Orthopaedic Surgery and Neurosurgery. The majority of responding institutions utilize computed tomographic imaging (46%) as the primary imaging modality, whereas 42% of hospitals used x-ray primarily. The remaining institutions reported using a combination of x-ray and computed tomographic imaging. Only 46% of institutions utilize a written, standardized pediatric cervical spine clearance protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a striking variability in the use of personnel, imaging modalities and, most importantly, standardized protocol in the evaluation of the pediatric trauma patient with a potential cervical spine injury. Cervical spine clearance protocols have been shown to decrease the incidence of missed injuries, minimize excessive radiation exposure, decrease the time to collar removal, and lower overall associated costs. It is our opinion that development of a task force or multicenter research protocol that incorporates existing evidence-based literature is the next best step in improving the care of children with cervical spine injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4-economic and decision analyses.

Does Every Patient Require Imaging after Cervical Spine Trauma? A Knowledge Translation Project to Support Evidence-Informed Practice for Physiotherapists

Purpose: This article evaluates, describes, and addresses a gap in British Columbia physiotherapists' knowledge of the decision making required for the diagnostic imaging of patients after traumatic neck injury. Method: An online survey of orthopaedic physiotherapists in British Columbia was undertaken to explore their awareness of, knowledge of, and attitudes toward the Canadian Cervical Spine Rule (C-Spine Rule) and decision making regarding the need for diagnostic imaging in managing patients with traumatic neck injury. The survey included questions about managing clinical scenarios; respondents' awareness, knowledge, and use of a specific clinical decision rule-the C-Spine Rule-and any perceived barriers to using clinical practice guidelines in general and the C-Spine Rule in specific. The survey also included questions about the facilitators of and barriers to using the C-Spine Rule. These data were used to guide development of a tool kit to facilitate use of the rule. Results: Of 889 physiotherapists, 467 (52.5%) completed the survey. Given a scenario in which imaging was indicated according to the C-Spine Rule, 95.2% of the respondents correctly recommended imaging. However, in a scenario in which imaging was not indicated, 42.7% incorrectly recommended it. The barriers to using the guidelines included their perceived rigidity, role limitation, and reliance on clinical judgment. The results indicated a need for, and guided development of, resources to facilitate the use of the C-Spine Rule by British Columbia physiotherapists. Conclusions: We identified a gap in the knowledge of British Columbia physiotherapists in identifying which patients were most likely to require imaging after sustaining a traumatic neck injury. We developed a tool kit to address these barriers. British Columbia physiotherapists have accessed this resource extensively. Evaluating its impact on clinical practice, although desirable, was not feasible.

Impact analysis studies of clinical prediction rules relevant to primary care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Following appropriate validation, clinical prediction rules (CPRs) should undergo impact analysis to evaluate their effect on patient care. The aim of this systematic review is to narratively review and critically appraise CPR impact analysis studies relevant to primary care.

SETTING

Primary care.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults and children.

INTERVENTION

Studies that implemented the CPR compared to usual care were included.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial (RCT), controlled before-after, and interrupted time series.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Physician behaviour and/or patient outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies, incorporating 14 unique CPRs, were included. The main study design was RCT (n=13). Overall, 10 studies reported an improvement in primary outcome with CPR implementation. Of 6 musculoskeletal studies, 5 were effective in altering targeted physician behaviour in ordering imaging for patients presenting with ankle, knee and neck musculoskeletal injuries. Of 6 cardiovascular studies, 4 implemented cardiovascular risk scores, and 3 reported no impact on physician behaviour outcomes, such as prescribing and referral, or patient outcomes, such as reduction in serum lipid levels. 2 studies examined CPRs in decision-making for patients presenting with chest pain and reduced inappropriate admissions. Of 5 respiratory studies, 2 were effective in reducing antibiotic prescribing for sore throat following CPR implementation. Overall, study methodological quality was often unclear due to incomplete reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing interest in developing and validating CPRs relevant to primary care, relatively few have gone through impact analysis. To date, research has focused on a small number of CPRs across few clinical domains only.

Use of diagnostic imaging in the emergency department for cervical spine injuries in Kingston, Ontario

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the use and clinical yield of diagnostic imaging (radiography, computed tomography, and medical resonance imaging) ordered to assist in the diagnosis of acute neck injuries presenting to emergency departments (EDs) in Kingston, Ontario, from 2002-2003 to 2009-2010.

METHODS

Acute neck injury cases were identified using records from the Kingston sites of the Canadian National Ambulatory Care Reporting System. Use of radiography was analyzed over time and related to proportions of cases diagnosed with clinically significant cervical spine injuries.

RESULTS

A total of 4,712 neck injury cases were identified. Proportions of cases referred for diagnostic imaging to the neck varied significantly over time, from 30.4% in 2002-2003 to 37.6% in 2009-2010 (ptrend  =  0.02). The percentage of total cases that were positive for clinically significant cervical spine injury ("clinical yield") also varied from a low of 5.8% in 2005-2006 to 9.2% in 2008-2009 (ptrend  =  0.04), although the clinical yield of neck-imaged cases did not increase across the study years (ptrend  =  0.23). Increased clinical yield was not observed in association with higher neck imaging rates whether that yield was expressed as a percentage of total cases positive for clinically significant injury (p  =  0.29) or as a percentage of neck-imaged cases that were positive (p  =  0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed increases in the use of diagnostic images over time, reflecting a need to reinforce an existing clinical decision rule for cervical spine radiography. Temporal increases in the clinical yield for total cases may suggest a changing case mix or more judicious use of advanced types of diagnostic imaging.

Knowledge Translation Tools are Emerging to Move Neck Pain Research into Practice

Development or synthesis of the best clinical research is in itself insufficient to change practice. Knowledge translation (KT) is an emerging field focused on moving knowledge into practice, which is a non-linear, dynamic process that involves knowledge synthesis, transfer, adoption, implementation, and sustained use. Successful implementation requires using KT strategies based on theory, evidence, and best practice, including tools and processes that engage knowledge developers and knowledge users. Tools can provide instrumental help in implementing evidence. A variety of theoretical frameworks underlie KT and provide guidance on how tools should be developed or implemented. A taxonomy that outlines different purposes for engaging in KT and target audiences can also be useful in developing or implementing tools. Theoretical frameworks that underlie KT typically take different perspectives on KT with differential focus on the characteristics of the knowledge, knowledge users, context/environment, or the cognitive and social processes that are involved in change. Knowledge users include consumers, clinicians, and policymakers. A variety of KT tools have supporting evidence, including: clinical practice guidelines, patient decision aids, and evidence summaries or toolkits. Exemplars are provided of two KT tools to implement best practice in management of neck pain—a clinician implementation guide (toolkit) and a patient decision aid. KT frameworks, taxonomies, clinical expertise, and evidence must be integrated to develop clinical tools that implement best evidence in the management of neck pain.

Wilderness Medical Society practice guidelines for spine immobilization in the austere environment

In an effort to produce best-practice guidelines for spine immobilization in the austere environment, the Wilderness Medical Society convened an expert panel charged with the development of evidence-based guidelines for management of the injured or potentially injured spine in an austere (dangerous or compromised) environment. Recommendations are made regarding several factors related to spinal immobilization. These recommendations are graded based on the quality of supporting evidence and balance between the benefits and risks or burdens for each factor according to the methodology stipulated by the American College of Chest Physicians. A treatment algorithm based on the guidelines is presented.

Adherence to Canadian C-Spine Rule in a regional hospital: a retrospective study of 406 cases

INTRODUCTION

Cervical spine radiography may be over-utilised in an emergency department setting. The Canadian C-Spine Rule has been developed to reduce unnecessary radiography. Our aim was to retrospectively determine the proportion of cervical spine radiographs requested through the emergency department for trauma patients that were clinically indicated, according to the Canadian C-Spine Rule.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey conducted at a regional centre in Northern Queensland, Australia. All cervical spine radiographs for trauma, performed at the Mackay Base Hospital from 1 January 2009 to the 31 December 2009, were reviewed. The relevant patient charts were audited for evidence of indications for radiography.

RESULTS

Of 406 patients in the study, 155 patients (38%) (95% confidence interval 33.3%, 42.7%) had cervical spine imaging performed that was not indicated according to the Canadian C-Spine Rule. None of these patients had a significant cervical spine injury on radiography.

CONCLUSION

Applying the Canadian C-Spine Rule would have safely reduced the incidence of cervical spine radiography by 38%. This would also reduce costs, patient morbidity and radiation exposure.

Measuring Acceptability of Clinical Decision Rules: Validation of the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument (OADRI) in Four Countries

Background. Clinical decision rules can benefit clinicians, patients, and health systems, but they involve considerable up-front development costs and must be acceptable to the target audience. No existing instrument measures the acceptability of a rule. The current study validated such an instrument. Methods. The authors administered the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument (OADRI) via postal survey to emergency physicians from 4 regions (Australasia, Canada, United Kingdom, and United States), in the context of 2 recently developed rules, the Canadian C-Spine Rule (C-Spine) and the Canadian CT Head Rule (CT-Head). Construct validity of the 12-item instrument was evaluated by hypothesis testing. Results. As predicted by a priori hypotheses, OADRI scores were 1) higher among rule users than nonusers, 2) higher among those using the rule ‘‘all of the time’’ v. ‘‘most of the time’’ v. ‘‘some of the time,’’ and 3) higher among rule nonusers who would consider using a rule v. those who would not. We also examined explicit reasons given by respondents who said they would not use these rules. Items in the OADRI accounted for 85.5% (C- Spine) and 90.2% (CT-Head) of the reasons given for not considering a rule acceptable. Conclusions. The OADRI is a simple, 12-item instrument that evaluates rule acceptability among clinicians. Potential uses include comparing multiple ‘‘protorules’’ during development, examining acceptability of a rule to a new audience prior to implementation, indicating barriers to rule use addressable by knowledge translation interventions, and potentially serving as a proxy measure for future rule use.

Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule: prospective 12 centre cluster randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of an active strategy to implement the validated Canadian C-Spine Rule into multiple emergency departments.

DESIGN

Matched pair cluster randomised trial.

SETTING

University and community emergency departments in Canada. Participants 11 824 alert and stable adults presenting with blunt trauma to the head or neck at one of 12 hospitals.

INTERVENTIONS

Six hospitals were randomly allocated to the intervention and six to the control. At the intervention sites, active strategies were used to implement the Canadian C-Spine Rule, including education, policy, and real time reminders on radiology requisitions. No specific intervention was introduced to alter the behaviour of doctors requesting cervical spine imaging at the control sites.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Diagnostic imaging rate of the cervical spine during two 12 month before and after periods.

RESULTS

Patients were balanced between control and intervention sites. From the before to the after periods, the intervention group showed a relative reduction in cervical spine imaging of 12.8% (95% confidence interval 9% to 16%; 61.7% v 53.3%; P=0.01) and the control group a relative increase of 12.5% (7% to 18%; 52.8% v 58.9%; P=0.03). These changes were significant when both groups were compared (P<0.001). No fractures were missed and no adverse outcomes occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule led to a significant decrease in imaging without injuries being missed or patient morbidity. Final imaging rates were much lower at intervention sites than at most US hospitals. Widespread implementation of this rule could lead to reduced healthcare costs and more efficient patient flow in busy emergency departments worldwide.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials NCT00290875.

Assessment of neck pain and its associated disorders: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders

STUDY DESIGN

Best evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature.

METHODS

The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980-2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain.

RESULTS

We found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain.

CONCLUSION

The scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients' course, response to treatment, and in clinical research.

Does applying the Canadian Cervical Spine rule reduce cervical spine radiography rates in alert patients with blunt trauma to the neck? A retrospective analysis

Background

A cautious outlook towards neck injuries has been the norm to avoid missing cervical spine injuries. Consequently there has been an increased use of cervical spine radiography. The Canadian Cervical Spine rule was proposed to reduce unnecessary use of cervical spine radiography in alert and stable patients. Our aim was to see whether applying the Canadian Cervical Spine rule reduced the need for cervical spine radiography without missing significant cervical spine injuries.

Methods

This was a retrospective study conducted in 2 hospitals. 114 alert and stable patients who had cervical spine radiographs for suspected neck injuries were included in the study. Data on patient demographics, high risk & low risk factors as per the Canadian Cervical Spine rule and cervical spine radiography results were collected and analysed.

Results

28 patients were included in the high risk category according to the Canadian Cervical Spine rule. 86 patients fell into the low risk category. If the Canadian Cervical Spine rule was applied, there would have been a significant reduction in cervical spine radiographs as 86/114 patients (75.4%) would not have needed cervical spine radiograph. 2/114 patients who had significant cervical spine injuries would have been identified when the Canadian Cervical Spine rule was applied.

Conclusion

Applying the Canadian Cervical Spine rule for neck injuries in alert and stable patients would have reduced the use of cervical spine radiographs without missing out significant cervical spine injuries. This relates to reduction in radiation exposure to patients and health care costs.

Assessment of neck pain and its associated disorders: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders

STUDY DESIGN

Best evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature.

METHODS

The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980-2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain.

RESULTS

We found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain.

CONCLUSION

The scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients' course, response to treatment, and in clinical research.