Prehospital Predictors of Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury in Victoria, Australia

The prehospital management of ambulance-attended adults who fell: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The ageing population is requiring more ambulance attendances for falls. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise the evidence for the prehospital management of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) attended adult patients who fall.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute methods for scoping reviews were used. Six databases were searched (Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ProQuest), 1st August 2021. Included sources reported: ambulance attended (context), adults who fell (population), injuries, interventions or disposition data (concept). Data were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

One-hundred and fifteen research sources met the inclusion criteria. Detailed information describing prehospital delivered EMS interventions, transport decisions and alternative care pathways was limited. Overall, adults< 65 years were less likely than older adults to be attended repeatedly and/or not transported. Being male, falling from height and sustaining severe injuries were associated with transport to major trauma centres. Older females, falling from standing/low height with minor injuries were less likely to be transported to major trauma centres.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between patient characteristics, falls and resulting injuries were well described in the literature. Other evidence about EMS management in prehospital settings was limited. Further research regarding prehospital interventions, transport decisions and alternative care pathways in the prehospital setting is recommended.

Factors which affect the application and implementation of a spinal motion restriction protocol by prehospital providers in a low resource setting: A scoping review

·

There is a need for a patient-centred approach to the prehospital spinal management approach, which considers the associated risks, available personnel and limited resources.

·

There is limited evidence supporting the use of the NEXUS and CCR decision tools in the prehospital setting.

·

Prehospital spinal motion restriction decision tools should focus on reducing unnecessary spinal motion restriction and its associated adverse effects

·

Developing a decision tool with more context-specific prehospital instructions for selective spinal motion restriction is of value.

Introduction

The safety and effectiveness of prehospital clinical c-spine clearance or spinal motion restriction (SMR) decision support tools are unclear. The present study aimed to examine the available literature on clinical cervical spine clearance and selective SMR decision support tools to identify possible barriers to implementation, safety, and effectiveness when used by emergency medical service (EMS) practitioners.

Method

We performed a focused scoping review of published literature on the prehospital use of clinical c-spine clearance and SMR decision tools in adult blunt trauma patients. The Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Turning Research into Practice and EBSCOhost online databases were searched (February 2021). The type of decision support tool and facilitators and barriers to its use were extracted from each included publication in accordance with a modified descriptive-analytical framework. Extracted data were subjected to thematic analysis.

Results

Following screening, forty-two articles were included in this scoping review. No studies conducted specifically in low resource settings were found. The majority of articles (57%) evaluated the use of specific SMR decision support tools, such as the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) and the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR). Potential facilitators of safe and effective use were identified in 60%, and potential barriers to safe and effective use in 55% of included articles. Only one study evaluated the CCR when used by EMS practitioners, making it difficult to determine its appropriateness for implementation in the prehospital setting.

Conclusion

This is the first scoping review, to our knowledge, that has attempted to identify the possible barriers and facilitators to their implementation, safety, and effectiveness when used by EMS practitioners. Key issues identified included terminology, guideline compliance and implementation, and a lack of context-specific evidence. These may provide important considerations for future guideline development.

The Immo Traffic Light System as a Decision-Making Tool for Prehospital Spinal Immobilization

BACKGROUND

Spinal injuries are difficult injuries to assess yet can be associated with significant neurological damage. To avoid secondary damage, immobilization is considered state of the art trauma care. The indication for spinal immobilization must be assessed, however, for potential complications as well as its advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

This systematic review addressing the question of the correct indication for spinal immobilization in trauma patients was compiled on the basis of our previously published analysis of possible predictors from the Trauma Registry of the German Society for Trauma Surgery. A Delphi procedure was then used to develop suggestions for action regarding immobilization based on the results of this review.

RESULTS

The search of the literature yielded 576 publications. The 24 publications included in the qualitative analysis report of 2 228 076 patients. A decision tool for spinal immobilization in prehospital trauma care was developed (Immo traffic light system) based on the results of the Delphi procedure. According to this system, severely injured patients with blunt trauma, severe traumatic brain injury, peripheral neurological symptoms, or spinal pain requiring treatment should be immobilized. Patients with a statistically increased risk of spinal injury as a result of the four cardinal features (fall >3m, severe trunk injury, supra clavicular injury, seniority [age >65 years]) should only have their spinal motion restricted after weighing up the pros and cons. Isolated penetrating trunk injuries should not be immobilized.

CONCLUSION

High-quality studies demonstrating the benefit of prehospital spinal immobilization are still lacking. Decision tools such as the Immo traffic light system can help weigh up the pros and cons of immobilization.

Paramedic attitudes towards prehospital spinal care: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The optimal application of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in the prehospital setting continues to be debated. Few studies have examined how changing guidelines have been received and interpreted by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel. This study surveys paramedics' attitudes, observations, and self-reported practices around the treatment of potential spine injuries in the prehospital setting.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey of a North American EMS agency. After development and piloting, the final version of the survey contained four sections covering attitudes towards 1) general practice, 2) specific techniques, 3) assessment protocols, and 4) mechanisms of injury (MOI). Questions used Likert-scale, multiple-choice, yes/no, and free-text responses. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to identify latent constructs within responses, and factor scores were analyzed by ordinal logistic regression for associations with demographic characteristics (including qualification level, gender, and years of experience). MOI evaluations were assessed for inter-rater reliability (Fleiss' kappa). Inductive qualitative content analysis, following Elo & Kyngäs (2008), was used to examine free-text responses.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty responses were received (36% of staff). Raw results indicated that respondents felt that SMR was seen as less important than in the past, that they were treating fewer patients than previously, and that they follow protocol in most situations. The EFA identified two factors: one (Judging MOIs) captured paramedics' estimation that the presented MOI could potentially cause a spine injury, and another (Treatment Value) reflected respondents' composite view of the effectiveness, importance, and applicability of SMR. Respondents with advanced life support (ALS) qualification were more likely to be skeptical of the value of SMR compared to those at the basic life support (BLS) level (OR: 2.40, 95%CI: 1.21-4.76, p = 0.01). Overall, respondents showed fair agreement in the evaluation of MOIs (k = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.09-0.49). Content analysis identified tension expressed by respondents between SMR-as-directed and SMR-as-applied.

CONCLUSION

Results of this survey show that EMS personnel are skeptical of many elements of SMR but use various strategies to balance protocol adherence with optimizing patient care. While identifying several areas for future research, these findings argue for incorporating provider feedback and judgement into future guideline revision.

Evaluating prehospital care of patients with potential traumatic spinal cord injury: scoping review

PURPOSE

To gain insight into current research regarding prehospital care (PHC) in patients with potential traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) and to disseminate the findings to the research community.

METHODS

In March 2019, we performed a literature search of publications from January 1990 to March 2019 indexed in PubMed, gray literature including professional websites; and reference sections of selected articles for other relevant literature. This review was performed according to Arksey and O'Malley's framework.

RESULTS

There were 42 studies selected based on the inclusion criteria for review; 18 articles regarding immobilization; 12 articles regarding movement, positioning and transport; four for spinal clearance; three for airway protection; and two for the role of PHC providers. There were some articles that covered two topics: one article was regarding movement, positioning and transport and airway protection, and two were regarding spinal clearance and the role of PHC providers.

CONCLUSION

There was no uniform opinion about spinal immobilization of patients with suspected TSCI. The novel lateral trauma position and one of two High Arm IN Endangered Spine (HAINES) methods are preferred methods for unconscious patients. Controlled self-extrication for patients with stable hemodynamic status is recommended. Early and proper identifying of potential TSCI by PHC providers can significantly improve patients' outcomes and can result in avoiding unwanted spinal immobilization. Future prospective studies with a large sample size in real-life settings are needed to provide clear and evidence-based data in PHC of patients with suspected TSCI.

Patterns and Predictors of Firearm-related Spinal Cord Injuries in Adult Trauma Patients

INTRODUCTION

Firearm-related spinal cord injuries are commonly missed in the initial assessment as they are often obscured by concomitant injuries and emergent trauma management. These injuries, however, have a significant health and financial impact. The objective of this study was to examine firearm-related spinal cord injuries and identify predictors of presence of such injuries in adult trauma patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined adult trauma patients (≥16 years) with injuries from firearms included in the 2015 United States National Trauma Data Bank. We performed descriptive and bivariate analyses and compared two groups: patients with no spinal cord injury (SCI) or vertebral column injury (VCI); and patients with SCI and/or VCI. Predictors of SCI and/or VCI in patients with firearm-related injuries were identified using a multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

There were 34,898 patients who sustained a firearm-induced injury. SCI and/or VCI were present in 2768 (7.9%) patients. Patients with SCI and/or VCI had more frequently severe injuries, higher Injury Severity Score (ISS), lower mean systolic blood pressure, and lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). The mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups (14.7%, N = 407 in SCI and/or VCI vs 15.0%, N = 4,811 in no SCI or VCI group). Significant general positive predictors of presence of SCI and/or VCI were as follows: university hospital; assault; public or unspecified location of injury; drug use; air medical transport; and Medicaid coverage. Significant clinical positive predictors included fractures, torso injuries, blood vessel or internal organ injuries, open wounds, mild (13-15) and moderate GCS scores (9 - 12), and ISS ≥ 16.

CONCLUSION

Firearm-induced SCI and/or VCI injuries have a high burden on affected victims. The identified predictors for the presence of SCI and/or VCI injuries can help with early detection, avoiding management delays, and improving outcomes. Further studies defining the impact of each predictor are needed.

Systematic scoping review protocol for clinical prediction rules (CPRs) in the management of patients with spinal cord injuries

INTRODUCTION

The upsurge in the use of clinical prediction models in general medical practice is a result of evidence-based practice. However, the total number of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) currently being used or undergoing impact analysis in the management of patients who have sustained spinal cord injuries (SCIs) is unknown. This scoping review protocol will describe the current CPRs being used and highlight their possible strengths and weaknesses in SCI management.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework will be used. The following databases will be searched to identify relevant literature relating to the use of CPRs in the management of patients who have sustained an SCI: PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, Medline, OvidMedline and Google Scholar. Grey literature as well as reference lists of included studies will be searched. All studies relating to the use of CPRs in the management of patients with SCIs will be included. Literature searches and data extraction will be performed independently by two groups of reviewers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical clearance is not required for this scoping review study since only secondary data sources will be used. The findings of this review will be disseminated by means of peer-reviewed publication and conference proceedings. The final paper will be submitted for publication. Results of this review will also be presented at relevant conferences and disseminated to important stakeholders such as practicing physicians within specialised spinal care facilities within South Africa.