A Change from a Spinal Immobilization to a Spinal Motion Restriction Protocol was Not Associated with an Increase in Disabling Spinal Cord Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, Emergency Medical Service (EMS) systems decreased backboard use as they transition from spinal immobilization (SI) protocols to spinal motion restriction (SMR) protocols. Since this change, no study has examined its effect on the neurologic outcomes of patients with spine injuries. OBJECTIVES: The object of this study is to determine if a state-wide protocol change from an SI to an SMR protocol had an effect on the incidence of disabling spinal cord injuries. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients in a single Level I trauma center before and after a change in spinal injury protocols. A two-step review of the record was used to classify spinal cord injuries as disabling or not disabling. A binary logistic regression was used to determine the effects of protocol, gender, age, level of injury, and mechanism of injury (MOI) on the incidence of significant disability from a spinal cord injury. RESULTS: A total of 549 patients in the SI period and 623 patients in the SMR period were included in the analysis. In the logistic regression, the change from an SI protocol to an SMR protocol did not demonstrate a significant effect on the incidence of disabling spinal injuries (OR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.44 - 1.36). CONCLUSION: This study did not demonstrate an increase in disabling spinal cord injuries after a shift from an SI protocol to an SMR protocol. This finding, in addition to existing literature, supports the introduction of SMR protocols and the decreased use of the backboard.

Symptom Criteria for COVID-19 Testing of Heath Care Workers.

BACKGROUND: Symptom criteria for COVID-19 testing of heath care workers (HCWs) limitations on testing availability have been challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic. An evidence-based symptom criteria for identifying HCWs for testing, based on the probability of positive COVID-19 test results, would allow for a more appropriate use of testing resources. METHODS: This was an observational study of outpatient COVID-19 testing of HCWs. Prior to testing, HCWs were asked about the presence of 10 symptoms. Their responses were then compared to their subsequent pharyngeal swab COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test results. These data were used to derive and evaluate a symptom-based testing criteria. RESULTS: A total of 961 HCWs were included in the analysis, of whom 225 (23%) had positive test results. Loss of taste or smell was the symptom with the largest positive likelihood ratio (3.33). Dry cough, regardless of the presence or absence of other symptoms, was the most sensitive (74%) and the least specific (32%) symptom. The existing testing criteria consisting of any combination of one or more of three symptoms (fever, shortness of breath, dry cough) was 93% sensitive and 9% specific (area unce the curve [AUC] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59 to 0.67). The derived testing criteria consisting of any combination of one or more of two symptoms (fever, loss of taste or smell) was 89% sensitive and 48% specific (AUC = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.78). The hybrid testing criteria consisting of any combination of one or more of four symptoms (fever, shortness of breath, dry cough, loss of taste or smell) was 98% sensitive and 8% specific (AUC = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.80). CONCLUSION: An evidence-based approach to COVID-19 testing that at least includes fever and loss of taste or smell should be utilized when determining which HCWs should be tested.