Search

Importance: Three clinical decision rules were previously derived to identify patients with headache requiring investigations to rule out subarachnoid hemorrhage., Objective: To assess the accuracy, reliability, acceptability, and potential refinement (ie, to improve sensitivity or specificity) of these rules in a new cohort of patients with headache., Design, Setting, and Patients: Multicenter cohort study conducted at 10 university-affiliated Canadian tertiary care emergency departments from April 2006 to July 2010. Enrolled patients were 2131 adults with a headache peaking within 1 hour and no neurologic deficits. Physicians completed data forms after assessing eligible patients prior to investigations., Main Outcomes and Measures: Subarachnoid hemorrhage, defined as (1) subarachnoid blood on computed tomography scan; (2) xanthochromia in cerebrospinal fluid; or (3) red blood cells in the final tube of cerebrospinal fluid, with positive angiography findings., Results: Of the 2131 enrolled patients, 132 (6.2%) had subarachnoid hemorrhage. The decision rule including any of age 40 years or older, neck pain or stiffness, witnessed loss of consciousness, or onset during exertion had 98.5% (95% CI, 94.6%-99.6%) sensitivity and 27.5% (95% CI, 25.6%-29.5%) specificity for subarachnoid hemorrhage. Adding "thunderclap headache" (ie, instantly peaking pain) and "limited neck flexion on examination" resulted in the Ottawa SAH Rule, with 100% (95% CI, 97.2%-100.0%) sensitivity and 15.3% (95% CI, 13.8%-16.9%) specificity., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients presenting to the emergency department with acute nontraumatic headache that reached maximal intensity within 1 hour and who had normal neurologic examination findings, the Ottawa SAH Rule was highly sensitive for identifying subarachnoid hemorrhage. These findings apply only to patients with these specific clinical characteristics and require additional evaluation in implementation studies before the rule is applied in routine clinical care.

Context: Current use of cranial computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury is increasing rapidly, highly variable, and inefficient. The Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) and New Orleans Criteria (NOC) are previously developed clinical decision rules to guide CT use for patients with minor head injury and with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 13 to 15 for the CCHR and a score of 15 for the NOC. However, uncertainty about the clinical performance of these rules exists., Objective: To compare the clinical performance of these 2 decision rules for detecting the need for neurosurgical intervention and clinically important brain injury., Design, Setting, and Patients: In a prospective cohort study (June 2000-December 2002) that included 9 emergency departments in large Canadian community and university hospitals, the CCHR was evaluated in a convenience sample of 2707 adults who presented to the emergency department with blunt head trauma resulting in witnessed loss of consciousness, disorientation, or definite amnesia and a GCS score of 13 to 15. The CCHR and NOC were compared in a subgroup of 1822 adults with minor head injury and GCS score of 15., Main Outcome Measures: Neurosurgical intervention and clinically important brain injury evaluated by CT and a structured follow-up telephone interview., Results: Among 1822 patients with GCS score of 15, 8 (0.4%) required neurosurgical intervention and 97 (5.3%) had clinically important brain injury. The NOC and the CCHR both had 100% sensitivity but the CCHR was more specific (76.3% vs 12.1%, P<.001) for predicting need for neurosurgical intervention. For clinically important brain injury, the CCHR and the NOC had similar sensitivity (100% vs 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 96%-100%) but the CCHR was more specific (50.6% vs 12.7%, P<.001), and would result in lower CT rates (52.1% vs 88.0%, P<.001). The kappa values for physician interpretation of the rules, CCHR vs NOC, were 0.85 vs 0.47. Physicians misinterpreted the rules as not requiring imaging for 4.0% of patients according to CCHR and 5.5% according to NOC (P = .04). Among all 2707 patients with a GCS score of 13 to 15, the CCHR had sensitivities of 100% (95% CI, 91%-100%) for 41 patients requiring neurosurgical intervention and 100% (95% CI, 98%-100%) for 231 patients with clinically important brain injury., Conclusion: For patients with minor head injury and GCS score of 15, the CCHR and the NOC have equivalent high sensitivities for need for neurosurgical intervention and clinically important brain injury, but the CCHR has higher specificity for important clinical outcomes than does the NOC, and its use may result in reduced imaging rates.

Context: High levels of variation and inefficiency exist in current clinical practice regarding use of cervical spine (C-spine) radiography in alert and stable trauma patients., Objective: To derive a clinical decision rule that is highly sensitive for detecting acute C-spine injury and will allow emergency department (ED) physicians to be more selective in use of radiography in alert and stable trauma patients., Design: Prospective cohort study conducted from October 1996 to April 1999, in which physicians evaluated patients for 20 standardized clinical findings prior to radiography. In some cases, a second physician performed independent interobserver assessments., Setting: Ten EDs in large Canadian community and university hospitals., Patients: Convenience sample of 8924 adults (mean age, 37 years) who presented to the ED with blunt trauma to the head/neck, stable vital signs, and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15., Main Outcome Measure: Clinically important C-spine injury, evaluated by plain radiography, computed tomography, and a structured follow-up telephone interview. The clinical decision rule was derived using the kappa coefficient, logistic regression analysis, and chi(2) recursive partitioning techniques., Results: Among the study sample, 151 (1.7%) had important C-spine injury. The resultant model and final Canadian C-Spine Rule comprises 3 main questions: (1) is there any high-risk factor present that mandates radiography (ie, age >/=65 years, dangerous mechanism, or paresthesias in extremities)? (2) is there any low-risk factor present that allows safe assessment of range of motion (ie, simple rear-end motor vehicle collision, sitting position in ED, ambulatory at any time since injury, delayed onset of neck pain, or absence of midline C-spine tenderness)? and (3) is the patient able to actively rotate neck 45 degrees to the left and right? By cross-validation, this rule had 100% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 98%-100%) and 42.5% specificity (95% CI, 40%-44%) for identifying 151 clinically important C-spine injuries. The potential radiography ordering rate would be 58.2%., Conclusion: We have derived the Canadian C-Spine Rule, a highly sensitive decision rule for use of C-spine radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. If prospectively validated in other cohorts, this rule has the potential to significantly reduce practice variation and inefficiency in ED use of C-spine radiography.

Clinical experience provides clinicians with an intuitive sense of which findings on history, physical examination, and investigation are critical in making an accurate diagnosis, or an accurate assessment of a patient's fate. A clinical decision rule (CDR) is a clinical tool that quantifies the individual contributions that various components of the history, physical examination, and basic laboratory results make toward the diagnosis, prognosis, or likely response to treatment in a patient. Clinical decision rules attempt to formally test, simplify, and increase the accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic and prognostic assessments. Existing CDRs guide clinicians, establish pretest probability, provide screening tests for common problems, and estimate risk. Three steps are involved in the development and testing of a CDR: creation of the rule, testing or validating the rule, and assessing the impact of the rule on clinical behavior. Clinicians evaluating CDRs for possible clinical use should assess the following components: the method of derivation; the validation of the CDR to ensure that its repeated use leads to the same results; and its predictive power. We consider CDRs that have been validated in a new clinical setting to be level 1 CDRs and most appropriate for implementation. Level 1 CDRs have the potential to inform clinical judgment, to change clinical behavior, and to reduce unnecessary costs, while maintaining quality of care and patient satisfaction. JAMA. 2000;284:79-84

Context: Survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are low; published survival rates in Ontario are only 2.5%. This study represents phase II of the Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) study, which is designed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of various prehospital interventions for patients with cardiac arrest, trauma, and critical illnesses., Objective: To assess the impact on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival of the implementation of a rapid defibrillation program in a large multicenter emergency medical services (EMS) system with existing basic life support and defibrillation (BLS-D) level of care., Design: Controlled clinical trial comparing survival for 36 months before (phase I) and 12 months after (phase II) system optimization., Setting: Nineteen urban and suburban Ontario communities (populations ranging from 16 000 to 750 000 [total, 2.7 million])., Patients: All patients who had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the study communities for whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency responders., Interventions: Study communities optimized their EMS systems to achieve the target response interval from when a call was received until a vehicle stopped with a defibrillator of 8 minutes or less for 90% of cardiac arrest cases. Working both locally and provincially, communities implemented multiple measures, including defibrillation by firefighters, base paging, tiered response agreements with fire departments, continuous quality improvement for response intervals, and province-wide revision and implementation of standard dispatch policies. All response times were obtained from a central dispatch system., Main Outcome Measure: Survival to hospital discharge., Results: The 4690 cardiac arrest patients studied in phase I and the 1641 in phase II were similar for all clinical and demographic characteristics, including age, sex, witnessed status, rhythm, and receipt of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The proportion of cases meeting the 8-minute response criterion improved (76.7% vs 92.5%; P<.001) as did most median response intervals. Overall survival to hospital discharge for all rhythm groups combined improved from 3.9% to 5.2 % (P = .03). The 33% relative increase in survival represents an additional 21 lives saved each year in the study communities (approximately 1 life per 120000 residents). The charges were estimated to be US $46900 per life saved for establishing the rapid defibrillation program and US $2400 per life saved annually for maintaining the program., Conclusion: An inexpensive, multifaceted system optimization approach to rapid defibrillation can lead to significant improvements in survival after cardiac arrest in a large BLS-D EMS system.

Context: The Ottawa Knee Rule is a previously validated clinical decision rule that was developed to allow physicians to be more selective and efficient in their use of plain radiography for patients with acute knee injuries., Objective: To assess the impact on clinical practice of implementing the Ottawa Knee Rule., Design: Controlled clinical trial with before-after and concurrent controls., Setting: Emergency departments of 2 teaching and 2 community hospitals., Patients: All 3907 consecutive eligible adults seen with acute knee injuries during two 12-month periods before and after the intervention., Intervention: During the after period in the 2 intervention hospitals, the Ottawa Knee Rule was taught to all house staff and attending physicians who were encouraged to order knee radiography according to the rule., Main Outcome Measures: Referral for knee radiography, accuracy and reliability of the rule, mean time in emergency department, and mean charges., Results: There was a relative reduction of 26.4% in the proportion of patients referred for knee radiography in the intervention group (77.6% vs 57.1 %; P<.001), but a relative reduction of only 1.3% in the control group (76.9% vs 75.9%; P=.60). These changes over time were significant when the intervention and control groups were compared (P<.001). The rule was found to have a sensitivity of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.0) for detecting 58 knee fractures. The K coefficient for interpretation of the rule was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.0). Compared with nonfracture patients who underwent radiography during the after-intervention period, those discharged without radiography spent less time in the emergency department (85.7 minutes vs 118.8 minutes) and incurred lower estimated total medical charges for physician visits and radiography (US $80 vs US $183)., Conclusions: Implementation of the Ottawa Knee Rule led to a decrease in use of knee radiography without patient dissatisfaction or missed fractures and was associated with reduced waiting times and costs. Widespread use of the rule could lead to important health care savings without jeopardizing patient care.

Background: Clinical prediction rules are decision-making tools for clinicians, containing variables from the history, physical examination, or simple diagnostic tests., Objective: To review the quality of recently published clinical prediction rules and to suggest methodological standards for their development and evaluation., Data Sources: Four general medical journals were manually searched for clinical prediction rules published from 1991 through 1994., Study Selection: Four hundred sixty potentially eligible reports were identified, of which 30 were clinical prediction rules eligible for study. Most methodological standards could only be evaluated in 29 studies., Data Abstraction: Two investigators independently evaluated the quality of each report using a standard data sheet. Disagreements were resolved by consensus., Data Synthesis: The mathematical technique was used to develop the rule, and the results of the rule were described in 100% (29/29) of the reports. All the rules but 1 (97% [28/29]) were felt to be clinically sensible. The outcomes and predictive variables were clearly defined in 83% (24/29) and 59% (17/29) of the reports, respectively. Blind assessment of outcomes and predictive variables occurred in 41% (12/29) and 79% (23/29) of the reports, respectively, and the rules were prospectively validated in 79% (11/14). Reproducibility of predictive variables was assessed in only 3% (1/29) of the reports, and the effect of the rule on clinical use was prospectively measured in only 3% (1/30). Forty-one percent (12/29) of the rules were felt to be easy to use., Conclusions: Although clinical prediction rules comply with some methodological criteria, for other criteria, better compliance is needed.

Objective: To compare the impact of active compression-decompression (ACD) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and standard CPR on the outcomes of in-hospital and prehospital victims of cardiac arrest., Design: Randomized controlled trial with blinding of allocation using a sealed container., Settings: (1) Emergency departments, wards, and intensive care units of 5 university hospitals and (2) all locations outside hospitals in 2 midsized cities., Patients: A total of 1784 adults who had cardiac arrest., Intervention: Patients received either standard or ACD CPR throughout resuscitation., Main Outcome Measures: Survival for 1 hour and to hospital discharge and the modified Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)., Results: All characteristics were similar in the standard and ACD CPR groups for the 773 in-hospital patients and the 1011 prehospital patients. For in-hospital patients, there were no significant differences between the standard (n = 368) and ACD (n = 405) CPR groups in survival for 1 hour (35.1% vs 34.6%; P = .89), in survival until hospital discharge (11.4% vs 10.4%; P = .64), or in the median MMSE score of survivors (37 in both groups). For patients who collapsed outside the hospital, there were also no significant differences between the standard (n = 510) and ACD (n = 501) CPR groups in survival for 1 hour (16.5% vs 18.2%; P = .48), in survival to hospital discharge (3.7% vs 4.6%; P = .49), or in the median MMSE score of survivors (35 in both groups). Exploration of clinically important subgroups failed to identify any patients who appeared to benefit from ACD CPR., Conclusions: ACD CPR did not improve survival or neurologic outcomes in any group of patients with cardiac arrest.

Objective: To validate a previously derived decision rule for the use of radiography in patients with acute knee injury., Design: Prospectively administered survey., Setting: Emergency departments of two university hospitals serving adults., Patients: Convenience sample of 1096 of 1251 eligible adults with acute knee injuries; 124 patients were examined by two physicians., Main Outcome Measures: Attending emergency physicians assessed each patient for standardized clinical variables and determined the need for radiography according to the decision rule. Patients who did not have radiography underwent a structured telephone interview at day 14 to determine the possibility of a fracture. The rule was assessed for ability to correctly identify the criterion standard, fracture of the knee. An attempt was made to refine the rule by means of univariate and recursive partitioning analyses., Results: The decision rule had a sensitivity of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.0) for identifying 63 clinically important fractures. Physicians correctly interpreted the rule in 96% of cases, and the k value for interpretation was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.89). The potential relative reduction in use of radiography was estimated to be 28%. The probability of fracture, if the decision rule were "negative," is estimated to be 0% (95% CI, 0% to 0.4%). Attempts to refine the rule led to a model with improved specificity but with an unacceptable loss of sensitivity., Conclusion: Prospective validation has shown this decision rule to be 100% sensitive for identifying fractures of the knee, to be reliable and acceptable, and to have the potential to allow physicians to reduce the use of radiography in patients with acute knee injury.

Objective: To assess the impact on clinical practice of implementing the Ottawa ankle rules., Design: Nonrandomized, controlled trial with before-after and concurrent controls., Setting: Emergency departments of a university (intervention) hospital and a community (control) hospital., Patients: All 2342 adults seen with acute ankle injuries during 5-month periods before and after the intervention., Intervention: The implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules by emergency department physicians., Main Outcome Measure: Proportions of patients referred for standard ankle and foot radiographic series., Results: There was a relative reduction in ankle radiography by 28% at the intervention hospital but an increase by 2% at the control hospital (P < .001). Foot radiography was reduced by 14% at the intervention hospital but increased by 13% at the control hospital (P < .05). Compared with nonfracture patients who had radiography during the after period at the intervention hospital, those discharged without radiography spent less time in the emergency department (80 minutes vs 116 minutes; P < .0001), had lower estimated total medical costs for physician visits and radiography ($62 vs $173; P < .001), but did not differ in the proportion satisfied with emergency physician care (95% vs 96%) or undergoing subsequent radiography (5% vs 5%). The rules were found to have sensitivities of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.0) for detecting 74 malleolar fractures and 1.0 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.0) for detecting 19 midfoot fractures. In the following 12 months at the intervention hospital, use of radiography did not increase., Conclusions: Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules led to a decrease in use of ankle radiography, waiting times, and costs without patient dissatisfaction or missed fractures. Future studies should address the generalizability of these decision rules in a variety of hospital settings.

Objective: To validate and refine previously derived clinical decision rules that aid the efficient use of radiography in acute ankle injuries., Design: Survey prospectively administered in two stages: validation and refinement of the original rules (first stage) and validation of the refined rules (second stage)., Setting: Emergency departments of two university hospitals., Patients: Convenience sample of adults with acute ankle injuries: 1032 of 1130 eligible patients in the first stage and 453 of 530 eligible patients in the second stage., Main Outcome Measures: Attending emergency physicians assessed each patient for standardized clinical variables and classified the need for radiography according to the original (first stage) and the refined (second stage) decision rules. The decision rules were assessed for their ability to correctly identify the criterion standard of fractures on ankle and foot radiographic series. The original decision rules were refined by univariate and recursive partitioning analyses., Main Results: In the first stage, the original decision rules were found to have sensitivities of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.0) for detecting 121 maleolar zone fractures, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.0) for detecting 49 midfoot zone fractures. For interpretation of the rules in 116 patients, kappa values were 0.56 for the ankle series rule and 0.69 for the foot series rule. Recursive partitioning of 20 predictor variables yielded refined decision rules for ankle and foot radiographic series. In the second stage, the refined rules proved to have sensitivities of 1.0 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.0) for 50 malleolar zone fractures, and 1.0 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.0) for 19 midfoot zone fractures. The potential reduction in radiography is estimated to be 34% for the ankle series and 30% for the foot series. The probability of fracture, if the corresponding decision rule were "negative," is estimated to be 0% (95% CI, 0% to 0.8%) in the ankle series, and 0% (95% CI, 0% to 0.4%) in the foot series., Conclusion: Refinement and validation have shown the Ottawa ankle rules to be 100% sensitive for fractures, to be reliable, and to have the potential to allow physicians to safely reduce the number of radiographs ordered in patients with ankle injuries by one third. Field trials will assess the feasibility of implementing these rules into clinical practice.