Dataset Information

A prospective cluster-randomized trial to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule in emergency departments.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Canadian CT Head Rule was developed to allow physicians to be more selective when ordering computed tomography (CT) imaging for patients with minor head injury. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing this validated decision rule at multiple emergency departments.

Methods

We conducted a matched-pair cluster-randomized trial that compared the outcomes of 4531 patients with minor head injury during two 12-month periods (before and after) at hospital emergency departments in Canada, six of which were randomly allocated as intervention sites and six as control sites. At the intervention sites, active strategies, including education, changes to policy and real-time reminders on radiologic requisitions were used to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule. The main outcome measure was referral for CT scan of the head.

Results

Baseline characteristics of patients were similar when comparing control to intervention sites. At the intervention sites, the proportion of patients referred for CT imaging increased from the "before" period (62.8%) to the "after" period (76.2%) (difference +13.3%, 95% CI 9.7%-17.0%). At the control sites, the proportion of CT imaging usage also increased, from 67.5% to 74.1% (difference +6.7%, 95% CI 2.6%-10.8%). The change in mean imaging rates from the "before" period to the "after" period for intervention versus control hospitals was not significant (p = 0.16). There were no missed brain injuries or adverse outcomes.

Interpretation

Our knowledge-translation-based trial of the Canadian CT Head Rule did not reduce rates of CT imaging in Canadian emergency departments. Future studies should identify strategies to deal with barriers to implementation of this decision rule and explore more effective approaches to knowledge translation. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00993252).

SUBMITTER: Stiell IG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2950184 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A prospective cluster-randomized trial to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule in emergency departments.

Stiell Ian G IG Clement Catherine M CM Grimshaw Jeremy M JM Brison Robert J RJ Rowe Brian H BH Lee Jacques S JS Shah Amit A Brehaut Jamie J Holroyd Brian R BR Schull Michael J MJ McKnight R Douglas RD Eisenhauer Mary A MA Dreyer Jonathan J Letovsky Eric E Rutledge Tim T Macphail Iain I Ross Scott S Perry Jeffrey J JJ Ip Urbain U Lesiuk Howard H Bennett Carol C Wells George A GA

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20100823 14

<h4>Background</h4>The Canadian CT Head Rule was developed to allow physicians to be more selective when ordering computed tomography (CT) imaging for patients with minor head injury. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing this validated decision rule at multiple emergency departments.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a matched-pair cluster-randomized trial that compared the outcomes of 4531 patients with minor head injury during two 12-month periods (before and after) at hospital em ...[more]

PMID: 20732978

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPhysicians in Canadian emergency departments (EDs) annually treat 185,000 alert and stable trauma victims who are at risk for cervical spine (C-spine) injury. However, only 0.9% of these patients have suffered a cervical spine fracture. Current use of radiography is not efficient. The Canadian C-Spine Rule is designed to allow physicians to be more selective and accurate in ordering C-spine radiography, and to rapidly clear the C-spine without the need for radiography in many patients. The goal of this phase III study is to evaluate the effectiveness of an active strategy to implement the Canadian C-Spine Rule into physician practice. Specific objectives are to: 1) determine clinical impact, 2) determine sustainability, 3) evaluate performance, and 4) conduct an economic evaluation.MethodsWe propose a matched-pair cluster design study that compares outcomes during three consecutive 12-months "before," "after," and "decay" periods at six pairs of "intervention" and "control" sites. These 12 hospital ED sites will be stratified as "teaching" or "community" hospitals, matched according to baseline C-spine radiography ordering rates, and then allocated within each pair to either intervention or control groups. During the "after" period at the intervention sites, simple and inexpensive strategies will be employed to actively implement the Canadian C-Spine Rule. The following outcomes will be assessed: 1) measures of clinical impact, 2) performance of the Canadian C-Spine Rule, and 3) economic measures. During the 12-month "decay" period, implementation strategies will continue, allowing us to evaluate the sustainability of the effect. We estimate a sample size of 4,800 patients in each period in order to have adequate power to evaluate the main outcomes.DiscussionPhase I successfully derived the Canadian C-Spine Rule and phase II confirmed the accuracy and safety of the rule, hence, the potential for physicians to improve care. What remains unknown is the actual change in clinical behaviors that can be affected by implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule, and whether implementation can be achieved with simple and inexpensive measures. We believe that the Canadian C-Spine Rule has the potential to significantly reduce health care costs and improve the efficiency of patient flow in busy Canadian EDs.

Project description:BackgroundThe diagnosis of pediatric pneumonia and determination of the likely pathogen are complicated as the clinical picture overlaps with other respiratory illnesses, interpretation of radiographs is subjective, and laboratory results are rarely diagnostic. This study was designed to describe the relative rates of bacterial and viral pneumonia in the pediatric Emergency Department (ED), determine the accuracy of pediatric ED physicians' ability to diagnose pneumonia and distinguish bacterial from viral etiology, and to determine clinical and laboratory predictors of bacterial pneumonia.MethodsChildren 3 months to 16 years of age presenting to seven Canadian pediatric EDs before the COVID-19 pandemic with fever and cough who had a chest radiograph performed for possible pneumonia were enrolled and underwent standardized clinical investigations. An expert panel was convened and reached a Consensus Diagnosis of typical or atypical bacterial pneumonia, viral pneumonia or not pneumonia for each case.ResultsThe expert panel assessed 247 cases with the Consensus Diagnosis being typical bacterial pneumonia (N = 44(18%)), atypical bacterial pneumonia (N = 18(7%)), viral pneumonia (N = 46(19%)) and no pneumonia (N = 139(56%)). Treating ED physician diagnoses were typical bacterial pneumonia (N = 126(51%)), atypical bacterial pneumonia (N = 3(1%)), viral pneumonia (N = 10(4%)) and no pneumonia (N = 108(44%)) with low agreement between a diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia by the ED physician and the panel's Consensus Diagnosis (Kappa 0.15 (95% CI 0.08, 0.21)). Cut off values that predicted bacterial pneumonia as the Consensus Diagnosis were ESR ≥ 47 mm/hour, CRP ≥ 42 mg/L and procalcitonin ≥0.85 ng/m. Age greater than 5 years and cough for 5 or more days also predict bacterial pneumonia.ConclusionIn this cohort, pediatric ED physicians over-diagnosed typical bacterial pneumonia and underdiagnosed viral and atypical bacterial pneumonia. Bacterial pneumonia is most likely in children over 5 years of age, with cough for 5 or more days and/or with elevated inflammatory markers.

Project description:BackgroundThe Canadian CT Head Rule was prospectively derived and validated to assist clinicians with diagnostic decision-making regarding the use of computed tomography (CT) in adult patients with minor head injury. A recent intervention trial failed to demonstrate a decrease in the rate of head CTs following implementation of the rule in Canadian emergency departments. Yet, the same intervention, which included a one-hour educational session and reminders at the point of requisition, was successful in reducing cervical spine imaging rates in the same emergency departments. The reason for the varied effect of the intervention across these two behaviours is unclear. There is an increasing appreciation for the use of theory to conduct process evaluations to better understand how strategies are linked with outcomes in implementation trials. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) has been used to explore health professional behaviour and to design behaviour change interventions but, to date, has not been used to guide a theory-based process evaluation. In this proof of concept study, we explored whether the TDF could be used to guide a retrospective process evaluation to better understand emergency physicians' responses to the interventions employed in the Canadian CT Head Rule trial.MethodsA semi-structured interview guide, based on the 12 domains from the TDF, was used to conduct telephone interviews with project leads and physician participants from the intervention sites in the Canadian CT Head Rule trial. Two reviewers independently coded the anonymised interview transcripts using the TDF as a coding framework. Relevant domains were identified by: the presence of conflicting beliefs within a domain; the frequency of beliefs; and the likely strength of the impact of a belief on the behaviour.ResultsEight physicians from four of the intervention sites in the Canadian CT Head Rule trial participated in the interviews. Barriers likely to assist with understanding physicians' responses to the intervention in the trial were identified in six of the theoretical domains: beliefs about consequences; beliefs about capabilities; behavioural regulation; memory, attention and decision processes; environmental context and resources; and social influences. Despite knowledge that the Canadian CT Head Rule was highly sensitive and reliable for identifying clinically important brain injuries and strong beliefs about the benefits for using the rule, a number of barriers were identified that may have prevented physicians from consistently applying the rule.ConclusionThis proof of concept study demonstrates the use of the TDF as a guiding framework to design a retrospective theory-based process evaluation. There is a need for further development and testing of methods for using the TDF to guide theory-based process evaluations running alongside behaviour change intervention trials.

Dataset Information

A prospective cluster-randomized trial to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule in emergency departments.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

A prospective cluster-randomized trial to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule in emergency departments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets