Coggins A, Ebrahimi N, Kemp U, O'Shea K, Fusi M, Murphy M. A prospective evaluation of cervical spine immobilisation in low-risk trauma patients at a tertiary Emergency Department.
Australas Emerg Care 2019;
22:69-75. [PMID:
31053486 DOI:
10.1016/j.auec.2019.04.001]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2019] [Revised: 04/03/2019] [Accepted: 04/03/2019] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
In the Emergency Department cervical spine immobilisation precautions are frequently used. There is controversy in regard to the balance of risks and benefits of routine immobilisation in conscious patients.
METHODS
A prospective multi-methods evaluation in a tertiary trauma referral centre. The objectives were to investigate current practices and rate of concordance with established international guidelines. A provider survey focused on current knowledge, skills and attitudes and was disseminated to nurses, doctors and paramedics treating trauma patients. Additionally, clinical data were collected on a cohort of immobilised trauma patients. Demographic data were analysed using SPSS and content analysis was completed by manifest coding.
RESULTS
The response rate to the survey was 85.2%. Interdisciplinary providers included nurses (n=46), doctors (n=68) and paramedics (n=41). Content analysis revealed a range of themes for improving care. Themes identified included improved application of guidelines, tailored use of equipment in low-risk patients, improved access to radiology results, and staff education. The series of five case vignettes provided to participants revealed a high level of variance in intended approaches to immobilisation. In the cohort of trauma patients (n=54), the median age was 54 years and the most common mechanism of injury was falls (40.7%). Median time spent with immobilisation was 325min. Adherence to a recognised decision tool was 35/54 (64.8%). Precautions were initiated by paramedics in 42/54 (77.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite widespread dissemination of guidelines, observed approaches to patient immobilisation appear to be highly variable in this trauma centre. Reducing variation for low-risk patients is likely to improve the patient journey and minimise the risk of prolonged immobilisation. Further assessment of the causes of variation could define goals for targeted translational change.
Collapse