Missed cervical spine injuries: a national survey of the practice of evaluation of the cervical spine in confused and comatose patients

Value of MRI in the cervical spine imaging series of trauma patients: A state-of-the-art review

INTRODUCTION

Clinical decision protocols for evaluation and assessment of traumatic cervical spine injuries (TCSI) lean more towards the use of CT imaging. Investigation with MRI is therefore considered unnecessary following negative CT findings according to some local protocols. This review aims to explore what benefits MRI may offer in the clinical management of TCSI patients.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the following databases: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE using defined key terms and synonyms optimised for each database. The eligible articles were subjected to data extraction and thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

The initial electronic search yielded 2527 articles. Of these, 15 articles remained following the application of a pre-defined inclusion criteria and full-text assessment. Four themes (mechanism of injury, type of patient, injuries detected on MRI, significance of injuries detected on MRI) were developed relating to the usage and value of MRI in the management of CSI.

DISCUSSION

Our findings indicate that MRI may be very valuable in some situations for the evaluation of TCSI, however, its usage must be cautiously considered on a case-by-case basis in light of additional clinical benefit, patient safety and resource availability following a normal CT scan or in conjunction with CT or projection radiography where appropriate.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

MRI may serve as a confirmatory test in the management pathway of TCSI based on individual clinical needs. Consideration for key limitations (e.g., patients' cooperation) and accessibility challenges (e.g., cost) against the clinical benefit to the patient must be noted. Development of centre-specific policies from standard trauma imaging protocols may be essential for the timely management of TCSI.

[Implications of prehospital estimation of trauma patients for the treatment pathway-An evaluation of the TraumaRegister DGU®]

BACKGROUND

In the prehospital acute treatment phase of severely injured patients, the stabilization of the vital parameters is paramount. The rapid and precise assessment of the injuries by the emergency physician is crucial for the initial treatment and the selection of the receiving hospital.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether the prehospital emergency medical assessment has an influence on prehospital and emergency room treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from the TraumaRegister DGU® between 2015 and 2019 in Germany were evaluated. The prehospital emergency medical assessment of the injury pattern and severity was recorded using the emergency physician protocol and compared with the in-hospital documented diagnoses using the abbreviated injury scale.

RESULTS

A total of 47,838 patients with an average injury severity score (ISS) of 18,7 points (SD 12.3) were included. In summary, 127,739 injured body regions were documented in the hospitals. Of these, a total of 87,921 were correctly suspected by the emergency physician Thus, 39,818 injured body regions were not properly documented. In 42,530 cases a region of the body was suspected to be injured without the suspicion being confirmed in the hospital. Traumatic brain injuries and facial injuries were mostly overdiagnosed (13.5% and 14.7%, respectively documented by an emergency physician while the diagnosis was not confirmed in-hospital). Chest injuries were underdocumented (17.3% missed by an emergency physician while the diagnosis was finally confirmed in-hospital). The total mortality of all groups was very close to the expected mortality calculated with the revised injury severity classification II(RISC II)-score (12.0% vs. 11.3%).

CONCLUSION

In the prehospital care of severely injured patients, the overall injury severity is often correctly recorded by the emergency physician and correlates well with the derived treatment, the selection of the receiving hospital as well as the clinical course and the patient outcome; however, the assessment of injuries of individual body regions seems to be challenging in the prehospital setting.

Diagnostic error in the emergency department: learning from national patient safety incident report analysis

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic error occurs more frequently in the emergency department than in regular in-patient hospital care. We sought to characterise the nature of reported diagnostic error in hospital emergency departments in England and Wales from 2013 to 2015 and to identify the priority areas for intervention to reduce their occurrence.

METHODS

A cross-sectional mixed-methods design using an exploratory descriptive analysis and thematic analysis of patient safety incident reports. Primary data were extracted from a national database of patient safety incidents. Reports were filtered for emergency department settings, diagnostic error (as classified by the reporter), from 2013 to 2015. These were analysed for the chain of events, contributory factors and harm outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 2288 cases of confirmed diagnostic error: 1973 (86%) delayed and 315 (14%) wrong diagnoses. One in seven incidents were reported to have severe harm or death. Fractures were the most common condition (44%), with cervical-spine and neck of femur the most frequent types. Other common conditions included myocardial infarctions (7%) and intracranial bleeds (6%). Incidents involving both delayed and wrong diagnoses were associated with insufficient assessment, misinterpretation of diagnostic investigations and failure to order investigations. Contributory factors were predominantly human factors, including staff mistakes, healthcare professionals' inadequate skillset or knowledge and not following protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Systems modifications are needed that provide clinicians with better support in performing patient assessment and investigation interpretation. Interventions to reduce diagnostic error need to be evaluated in the emergency department setting, and could include standardised checklists, structured reporting and technological investigation improvements.

Evaluating the cervical spine in confused or unconscious adults after blunt trauma

Potential injury to the cervical spine should be considered in all patients who have suffered blunt trauma. Early spinal immobilization is required to minimize the risk of secondary spinal cord injury. However, prolonged immobilization is associated with its own morbidity. Clinical evaluation of the cervical spine in confused or unconscious adult trauma patients is challenging, and imaging is required to safely 'clear' the cervical spine. Despite the existence of national guidelines, significant variations in practice exist. This article summarizes the evidence for the initial stabilization of the cervical spine in adult trauma patients. It reviews the imaging modalities available and the criteria for discontinuation of cervical spine immobilization.