Implementation of a guideline for computed tomography head imaging in head injury: A prospective study

Are emergency department clinical pathway interventions adequately described, and are they delivered as intended? A systematic review

Introduction

The accurate reproduction of clinical interventions and the evaluation of provider adherence in research publications improve the evaluation and implementation of research findings into clinical practice. We sought to examine the proportion of clinical pathway publications in an emergency department setting that adequately reported the following: (1) the exact reproduction of the clinical pathway that was implemented in the study, (2) the adherence to and correct execution of the clinical pathway intervention, and (3) the presence of a pre-implementation education phase.

Methods

We performed a descriptive systematic review of the literature from 2006 to 2015 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. All types of prospective trial designs were eligible. Validated clinical pathway criteria were used to identify relevant publications. Two reviewers independently collected data using a piloted data abstraction tool. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

We identified 5947 publications, 44 of which met our inclusion criteria. The formal clinical pathway was fully reproduced in 27 (61%) publications, partially reproduced in 9 (21%), and not reproduced in 8 (18%). Only 14 (32%) studies reported whether at least one decision step was executed correctly. The presence of a pre-implementation education phase was reported in 33 (75%) studies.

Conclusion

The underreporting of intervention elements may present a barrier to both the evaluation and accurate replication of clinical pathway interventions. These finding may be useful for the elaboration of complex intervention reporting guidelines, improved reporting in future clinical pathway publications, and improved knowledge translation and exchange of clinical pathway interventions.

Validation of descriptive clinical pathway criteria in the systematic identification of publications in emergency medicine

Background

Heterogeneity in both the definition and terminology of clinical pathways presents a challenge to the systematic identification of primary studies for review purposes. Recently developed clinical pathway identification criteria may facilitate both the identification and assessment of clinical pathway studies. The goal of this publication is the validation of these five criteria in a descriptive systematic review of actively implemented clinical pathway studies in the emergency department setting. The main outcome measure is the inter-rater agreement of investigators using the clinical pathway criteria.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search from 2006 to 2015 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. All types of prospective trial designs were eligible. We identified relevant publications using the above-mentioned clinical pathway criteria. Two reviewers independently collected data using a piloted data abstraction tool.

Results

We identified 5947 publications, with 472 potentially relevant full text publications retrieved. Of these, 357 did not meet preliminary study inclusion criteria, leaving 115 publications where the clinical pathway criteria were applied. Ultimately, 44 publications were included. The inter-rater agreement of the criteria was very good (κ = 0.81, 95% Confidence Interval = 0.70–0.92). The vast majority of studies were excluded because the intervention did not meet the criterion of being multidisciplinary in nature.

Conclusion

These criteria are a useful instrument to reliably identify clinical pathway publications for systematic review purposes in an emergency department setting. Future modification of these criteria may improve their usefulness. Particular attention should be placed on clarifying what is meant by multidisciplinary involvement within the context of clinical pathway interventions, with specific emphasis placed on delineating the level of involvement of each discipline and their decision-making responsibility.

Clinical Decision Rules for Diagnostic Imaging in the Emergency Department: A Research Agenda

BACKGROUND

Major gaps persist in the development, validation, and implementation of clinical decision rules (CDRs) for diagnostic imaging.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this working group and article was to generate a consensus-based research agenda for the development and implementation of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

The authors followed consensus methodology, as outlined by the journal Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), combining literature review, electronic surveys, telephonic communications, and a modified nominal group technique. Final discussions occurred in person at the 2015 AEM consensus conference.

RESULTS

A research agenda was developed, prioritizing the following questions: 1) what are the optimal methods to justify the derivation and validation of diagnostic imaging CDRs, 2) what level of evidence is required before disseminating CDRs for widespread implementation, 3) what defines a successful CDR, 4) how should investigators best compare CDRs to clinical judgment, and 5) what disease states are amenable (and highest priority) to development of CDRs for diagnostic imaging in the ED?

CONCLUSIONS

The concepts discussed herein demonstrate the need for further research on CDR development and implementation regarding diagnostic imaging in the ED. Addressing this research agenda should have direct applicability to patients, clinicians, and health care systems.

Evaluation of the Scandinavian guidelines for head injuries based on a consecutive series with computed tomography from a Norwegian university hospital

Background

This study prospectively assesses clinical characteristics and management of consecutive minimal, mild and moderate head injury patients referred for CT scans. Compliance with the Scandinavian head injury guidelines and possible reasons for non-compliance is explored.

Methods

From January 16^th 2006 to January 15^th 2007, 1325 computed tomography (CT) examinations due to minimal, mild or moderate head injury according to the Head Injury Severity Scale (HISS) were carried out at our University Hospital. When ordering a CT scan due to head trauma, physicians were asked to fill out a questionnaire.

Results

Guideline compliance was impossible to assess in 49.5% of all cases. This was due to non-assessable or missing key variables necessary in the decision making algorithm. One or more key variables for HISS classification were not assessable in 34.4% as it was unknown whether there had been loss of consciousness (LOC), duration of LOC was unknown or it was impossible to assess amnesia or focal neurologic deficits. Definite compliance with both CT and admittance recommendations in guidelines was seen in only 31.2%. In 54.2% of patients with minimal head injuries who underwent CT scans, imaging was not necessary according to guidelines. 59.1% of all patients were admitted to hospital, however only 23.7% of these were admitted because of the head-injury alone. Age < 4 years, possible medical cause of injuries, severe headache/nausea or vomiting and the presence of non-traumatic CT findings were independently associated with non-assessable compliance with Scandinavian guidelines. Suspicion of influence of alcohol was inversely associated to non-compliance.

Conclusions

Despite the prospective study design, guideline compliance was not assessable in nearly half of the patients. Patients with isolated head injuries and available and obtainable complete clinical information necessary for guideline-based decision making are not dominating in a head injury population.