Dataset Information

North American survey on the post-neuroimaging management of children with mild head injuries.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVEThere remains uncertainty regarding the appropriate level of care and need for repeating neuroimaging among children with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) complicated by intracranial injury (ICI). This study's objective was to investigate physician practice patterns and decision-making processes for these patients in order to identify knowledge gaps and highlight avenues for future investigation.METHODSThe authors surveyed residents, fellows, and attending physicians from the following pediatric specialties: emergency medicine; general surgery; neurosurgery; and critical care. Participants came from 10 institutions in the United States and an email list maintained by the Canadian Neurosurgical Society. The survey asked respondents to indicate management preferences for and experiences with children with mTBI complicated by ICI, focusing on an exemplar clinical vignette of a 7-year-old girl with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 and a 5-mm subdural hematoma without midline shift after a fall down stairs.RESULTSThe response rate was 52% (n = 536). Overall, 326 (61%) respondents indicated they would recommend ICU admission for the child in the vignette. However, only 62 (12%) agreed/strongly agreed that this child was at high risk of neurological decline. Half of respondents (45%; n = 243) indicated they would order a planned follow-up CT (29%; n = 155) or MRI scan (19%; n = 102), though only 64 (12%) agreed/strongly agreed that repeat neuroimaging would influence their management. Common factors that increased the likelihood of ICU admission included presence of a focal neurological deficit (95%; n = 508 endorsed), midline shift (90%; n = 480) or an epidural hematoma (88%; n = 471). However, 42% (n = 225) indicated they would admit all children with mTBI and ICI to the ICU. Notably, 27% (n = 143) of respondents indicated they had seen one or more children with mTBI and intracranial hemorrhage demonstrate a rapid neurological decline when admitted to a general ward in the last year, and 13% (n = 71) had witnessed this outcome at least twice in the past year.CONCLUSIONSMany physicians endorse ICU admission and repeat neuroimaging for pediatric mTBI with ICI, despite uncertainty regarding the clinical utility of those decisions. These results, combined with evidence that existing practice may provide insufficient monitoring to some high-risk children, emphasize the need for validated decision tools to aid the management of these patients.

SUBMITTER: Greenberg JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6717430 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

North American survey on the post-neuroimaging management of children with mild head injuries.

Greenberg Jacob K JK Jeffe Donna B DB Carpenter Christopher R CR Yan Yan Y Pineda Jose A JA Lumba-Brown Angela A Keller Martin S MS Berger Daniel D Bollo Robert J RJ Ravindra Vijay M VM Naftel Robert P RP Dewan Michael C MC Shah Manish N MN Burns Erin C EC O'Neill Brent R BR Hankinson Todd C TC Whitehead William E WE Adelson P David PD Tamber Mandeep S MS McDonald Patrick J PJ Ahn Edward S ES Titsworth William W West Alina N AN Brownson Ross C RC Limbrick David D DD

Journal of neurosurgery. Pediatrics 20181026 2

OBJECTIVEThere remains uncertainty regarding the appropriate level of care and need for repeating neuroimaging among children with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) complicated by intracranial injury (ICI). This study's objective was to investigate physician practice patterns and decision-making processes for these patients in order to identify knowledge gaps and highlight avenues for future investigation.METHODSThe authors surveyed residents, fellows, and attending physicians from the followin ...[more]

PMID: 30485194

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 2010, coincident with the 100th anniversary of Flexner's sentinel report, the Carnegie Foundation published an updated review of North American medical education and challenged medical schools to initiate further educational reforms. Specific recommendations pertained to a) ensuring standardized outcomes while allowing for individualized processes, b) integrating foundational knowledge with clinical experience, c) cultivating habits of inquiry and innovation and d) professional identity formation. As we approach the 10-year anniversary of this latest report, we sought to determine what type of curricular revisions have been emerging within the past decade and what types of challenges have been encountered along the way?MethodsIn 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 166 Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accredited North American Medical Schools, using the points of contact (educational deans) that were listed in a publicly available, Association of American Medical Colleges database. Free text comments were grouped into themes using the constant-comparative technique.ResultsSixty unique responses yielding a 36.14% response rate. The distribution of responses was proportionally representative of the distribution of public vs. private, old vs. new vs. established North American medical schools. Self-reported curricular changes aggregated into five main themes: Changes in curricular structure/organization, changes in curricular content, changes in curricular delivery, changes in assessment, and changes involving increased use of technology/informatics. Challenges were predominantly focused on overcoming faculty resistance, faculty development, securing adequate resourcing, change management, and competition for limited amounts of curricular time.ConclusionsChanges in curricular organization, content, delivery, assessment and the use of technology reflect reforms that are broad and deep. Empowering faculty to "let go" of familiar constructs/processes requires strong leadership, particularly when initiating particularly disruptive curricular changes, such as relocating the Step 1 examination or shifting to a competency-based curriculum. While North American medical schools are responding to the calls for action described in the second (2010) Carnegie Foundation report, the full vision has yet to be achieved.

Project description:BackgroundFly-fishing requires rhythmic, coordinated movements to successfully cast a fly line. Previous studies have shown that the biomechanical demands of fly-casting may cause some individuals to develop upper extremity pain or injuries.PurposeTo report the rates, trends, and contributing factors of upper extremity pain and overuse injuries in a sample of North American recreational fly-fishers.Study designDescriptive epidemiology study.MethodsParticipants were reached via 3 popular online fly-fishing forums in April 2019. Each consenting North American participant over 18 years of age was given a link to a unique survey that recorded his or her demographic and orthopaedic histories, fly-fishing experience, equipment, casting techniques, upper extremity pain after fly-fishing, and chronic outcomes.ResultsThe 162 fly-fishers included were 63.3 (± 11.5) years of age, and 95.1% were men. In total, 59 (36.4%) reported experiencing upper extremity pain immediately after fly-fishing. Pain was rated a 4.0 (interquartile range, 3.0-6.0) on a 10-point Likert scale, commonly lasting less than 1 day (45.0%) or between 1 day and 1 week (45.0%). The majority (62.7%) reported not needing to see a medical provider for their pain/soreness. Those who did most commonly received diagnoses of elbow or rotator cuff tendinitis. Pain/soreness was associated with casting in an elliptical/sidearm fashion, compared with overhead or 2-handed casting (P = .006) using a weighted line or added weight (split-shot, weighted heads, etc) (P = .034) and with grip styles where the hand was pronated compared with being in a more neutral position (P = .046). The mean shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 10.8 (± 11.5). Higher scores were associated with a history of self-reported upper extremity orthopaedic injuries (B = 6.059 [95% CI, 2.476-9.642]; SE, 1.814; P = .001) and having had surgery for these injuries (B = 8.484 [95% CI, 4.454-12.513]; SE, 0.314; P < .001).ConclusionIn this sample of recreational fly-fishers, no aspects of fly-fishing were associated with long-term upper extremity disability, and only a little more than a third reported having transient pain immediately after fishing. Casting style, using weighted lines or added weight, and grip style were all associated with pain. These are modifiable risk factors that can be adjusted to reduce the risk of upper extremity pain immediately after fly-fishing.

Project description:Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) has become the most promising biomarker for detecting traumatic abnormalities on head computed tomography (CT) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), but most studies have not addressed the potential added value of combining the biomarker with clinical variables that confer risk for intracranial injuries. The Scandinavian Guidelines for Initial Management of Minimal, Mild, and Moderate Head Injuries in Adults were the first clinical decision rules in the field with an incorporated biomarker, the S100 astroglial calcium-binding protein B (S100B), which is used in the Mild (Low Risk) group defined by the guidelines. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of the guidelines when S100B was substituted with GFAP. The sample (N = 296) was recruited from the Tampere University Hospital's emergency department between November 2015 and November 2016, and there were 49 patients with available GFAP results who were stratified in the Mild (Low Risk) group (thus patients undergoing biomarker triaging). A previously reported cutoff of plasma GFAP ≥140 pg/mL was used. Within the Mild (Low Risk) group (n = 49), GFAP sensitivity (with 95% confidence intervals in parentheses) for detecting traumatic CT abnormalities was 1.0 (0.40-1.00), specificity 0.34 (0.19-0.53), the negative predictive value (NPV) 1.0 (0.68-1.00), and the positive predictive value (PPV) 0.16 (0.05-0.37). The sensitivity and specificity of the modified guidelines with GFAP, when applied to all imaged patients (n = 197) in the whole sample, were 0.94 (0.77-0.99) and 0.20 (0.15-0.28), respectively. NPV was 0.94 (0.80-0.99) and PPV 0.18 (0.13-0.25). In the Mild (Low Risk) group, none of the patients with GFAP results below 140 pg/mL had traumatic abnormalities on their head CT. These findings were derived from a small patient subgroup. Future researchers should replicate these findings in larger samples and assess whether GFAP has added or comparable value to S100B in acute TBI management.

Dataset Information

North American survey on the post-neuroimaging management of children with mild head injuries.

Publications

North American survey on the post-neuroimaging management of children with mild head injuries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets