Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule: prospective 12 centre cluster randomised trial

Ian G Stiell, Catherine M Clement, Jeremy Grimshaw, Robert J Brison, Brian H Rowe, Michael J Schull, Jacques S Lee, Jamie Brehaut, R Douglas McKnight, Mary A Eisenhauer, Jonathan Dreyer, Eric Letovsky, Tim Rutledge, Iain MacPhail, Scott Ross, Amit Shah, Jeffrey J Perry, Brian R Holroyd, Urbain Ip, Howard Lesiuk, George A Wells, Ian G Stiell, Catherine M Clement, Jeremy Grimshaw, Robert J Brison, Brian H Rowe, Michael J Schull, Jacques S Lee, Jamie Brehaut, R Douglas McKnight, Mary A Eisenhauer, Jonathan Dreyer, Eric Letovsky, Tim Rutledge, Iain MacPhail, Scott Ross, Amit Shah, Jeffrey J Perry, Brian R Holroyd, Urbain Ip, Howard Lesiuk, George A Wells

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an active strategy to implement the validated Canadian C-Spine Rule into multiple emergency departments.

Design: Matched pair cluster randomised trial.

Setting: University and community emergency departments in Canada. Participants 11 824 alert and stable adults presenting with blunt trauma to the head or neck at one of 12 hospitals.

Interventions: Six hospitals were randomly allocated to the intervention and six to the control. At the intervention sites, active strategies were used to implement the Canadian C-Spine Rule, including education, policy, and real time reminders on radiology requisitions. No specific intervention was introduced to alter the behaviour of doctors requesting cervical spine imaging at the control sites.

Main outcome measure: Diagnostic imaging rate of the cervical spine during two 12 month before and after periods.

Results: Patients were balanced between control and intervention sites. From the before to the after periods, the intervention group showed a relative reduction in cervical spine imaging of 12.8% (95% confidence interval 9% to 16%; 61.7% v 53.3%; P=0.01) and the control group a relative increase of 12.5% (7% to 18%; 52.8% v 58.9%; P=0.03). These changes were significant when both groups were compared (P<0.001). No fractures were missed and no adverse outcomes occurred.

Conclusions: Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule led to a significant decrease in imaging without injuries being missed or patient morbidity. Final imaging rates were much lower at intervention sites than at most US hospitals. Widespread implementation of this rule could lead to reduced healthcare costs and more efficient patient flow in busy emergency departments worldwide.

Trial registration: Clinical trials NCT00290875.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787380/bin/stii645945.f1_default.jpg
Canadian C-Spine Rule for selective ordering of cervical spine imaging

References

    1. McCaig LF, Nawar EW. National hospital ambulatory medical care survey: 2004 Emergency department summary. Adv Data 2006;372.
    1. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, Laupacis A, Brison R, Eisenhauer MA, et al. Variation in emergency department use of cervical spine radiography for alert, stable trauma patients. Can Med Assoc J 1997;156:1537-44.
    1. Hoffman JR, Mower W, Wolfson AB, Todd K, Zucker M. Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. N Engl J Med 2000;343:94-9.
    1. Martin DR, Semelka RC. Health effects of ionising radiation from diagnostic CT. Lancet 2006;367:1712-4.
    1. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277-84.
    1. Laupacis A, Sekar N, Stiell IG. Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. JAMA 1997;277:488-94.
    1. McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC, Naylor CD, Stiell IG, Richardson WS. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA 2000;284:79-84.
    1. Stiell IG, Wells GA. Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. Ann Emerg Med 1999;33:437-47.
    1. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, Clement C, Lesiuk H, De Maio VJ, et al. The Canadian cervical spine radiography rule for alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA 2001;286:1841-8.
    1. Stiell IG, Clement C, McKnight RD, Brison R, Schull MJ, Rowe BH, et al. The Canadian C-Spine Rule versus the NEXUS low-risk criteria in patients with trauma. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2510-8.
    1. Lee TH. Evaluating decision aids: the next painful step. J Gen Intern Med 1990;5:528-9.
    1. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993;342:1317-22.
    1. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud P-AC, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? JAMA 1999;282:1458-65.
    1. Abboud P-AC, Cabana MD. Understanding barriers to the adoption of clinical decision rules (correspondence). Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:703-4.
    1. Reilly BM, Evans AT. Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:201-9.
    1. Brehaut JC, Stiell IG, Graham ID. Will a new clinical decision rule be widely used? The case of the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:413-20.
    1. Stiell IG, Grimshaw J, Wells GA, Coyle D, Lesiuk H, Rowe BH, et al. A matched-pair cluster design study protocol to evaluate implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule in hospital emergency departments: phase III. Implement Sci 2007;2.
    1. Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas RE, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, et al. Changing provider behaviour: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001;39:II2-45.
    1. Oxman AD, Thomson MA, Davis DA, Haynes RB. No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. Can Med Assoc J 1995;153:1423-31.
    1. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ 1998;317:465-8.
    1. Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB. A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 1995;274:700-5.
    1. Stiell IG, Vandemheen K, Brison R, Cass DE, Dreyer J, Eisenhauer MA, et al. Validity evaluation of the cervical spine injury proxy outcome assessment tool in the CCC Study. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6:434.
    1. Korn R. The paired t-test. Appl Stat 1984;33:230-1.
    1. Donner A, Donald A. Analysis of data arising from a stratified design with cluster as unit of randomization. Stat Med 1987;6:43-52.
    1. Gail MH, Mark SD, Carroll RJ, Green SB, Pee D. On design considerations and randomization-based inference for community intervention trials. Stat Med 1996;15:1069-92.
    1. Donner A, Klar N. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. London: Arnold, 2000.
    1. Thompson SG, Pyke SD, Hardy RJ. The design and analysis of paired cluster randomized trials: an application of meta-analysis techniques. Stat Med 1997;16:2063-79.
    1. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2004;328:702-8.
    1. Hahn S, Puffer S, Torgerson D, Watson J. Methodological bias in cluster randomised trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5.
    1. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Worthington JR. A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Ann Emerg Med 1992;21:384-90.
    1. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Reardon M, et al. Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries: refinement and prospective validation. JAMA 1993;269:1127-32.
    1. Stiell IG, McKnight RD, Greenberg GH, McDowell I, Nair RC, Wells GA, et al. Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules. JAMA 1994;271:827-32.
    1. Stiell IG, Wells G, Laupacis A, Brison R, Verbeek R, Vandemheen K, et al. A multicentre trial to introduce clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. BMJ 1995;311:594-7.
    1. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, Wells GA, McKnight RD, Cwinn AA, Cacciotti T, et al. Derivation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. Ann Emerg Med 1995;26:405-13.
    1. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, Wells GA, McDowell I, Cwinn AA, Smith NA, et al. Prospective validation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA 1996;275:611-5.
    1. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Hoag RA, Sivilotti MLA, Cacciotti TF, Verbeek RP, et al. Implementation of the Ottawa knee rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. JAMA 1997;278:2075-8.
    1. Kerr D, Bradshaw L, Kelly AM. Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule reduces cervical spine x-ray rate for alert patients with potential neck injury. J Emerg Med 2005;28:127-31.
    1. Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, Maclennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2002.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel