Physician Management and CT Ordering in the Emergency Department for Primary Headaches.

OBJECTIVE: Management of primary headache (PHA) varies across emergency departments (ED), yet there is widespread agreement that computed tomography (CT) scans are overused. This study assessed emergency physicians' (EPs) PHA management and their attitudes towards head CT ordering. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken with EPs from one Canadian center. Drivers of physicians' perceptions regarding the appropriateness of CT ordering for patients with PHA were explored. RESULTS: A total of 73 EPs (70% males; 48% with <10 years of practice) participated in the study. Most EPs (88%) did not order investigations for moderate-severe primary headaches; however, CT was the common investigation (47%) for headaches that did not improve. Computed tomography ordering was frequently motivated by the need for specialist consultation (64%) or admission (64%). A small proportion (27%) believed patients usually/frequently expected a scan. Nearly half of EPs (48%) identified patient imaging expectations/requests as a barrier to reducing CT ordering. Emergency physicians with CCFP (EM) certification were less likely to perceive CT ordering for patients with PHA as appropriate. Conversely, those who identified the possibility of missing a condition as a major barrier to limiting their CT use were more likely to perceive CT ordering for patients with PHA as appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency physicians reported consistency and evidence-based medical management. They highlighted the complexities of limiting CT ordering and both their level of training and their perceived barriers for limiting CT ordering seem to be influencing their attitudes. Further studies could elucidate these and other factors influencing their practice.

How to diagnose and treat benign headaches.

A 19-year-old female, university student with a long-standing history of migraine headaches presented to the emergency department (ED) with a 36-hour history of gradual onset of left-sided headache, preceded by visual aura. She stated that her headache was worse than usual and now associated with nausea, vomiting, and photophobia, despite use of oral ibuprofen. On examination, she was afebrile, her SaO2 = 98% on room air, her pulse was 110 beats/minute, and she was breathing 20 breaths/minute. She received a Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale score of 2 due to her pain score of 8/10 on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Her neurological examination was normal and her neck was supple with full range of motion. She was a non-smoker, infrequent cannabis user, and her last menstrual period was normal.

Effectiveness of Interventions to Decrease Image Ordering for Low Back Pain Presentations in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is an extremely frequent reason for patients to present to an emergency department (ED). Despite evidence against the utility of imaging, simple and advanced imaging (i.e., computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging) for patients with LBP has become increasingly frequent in the ED. The objective of this review was to identify and examine the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing image ordering in the ED for LBP patients. METHODS: A protocol was developed a priori, following the PRISMA guidelines, and registered with PROSPERO. Six bibliographic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Dissertation Abstracts) and the gray literature were searched. Comparative studies assessing interventions that targeted image ordering in the ED for adult patients with LBP were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened study eligibility and completed data extraction. Study quality was completed independently by two reviewers using the before-after quality assessment checklist, with a third-party mediator resolving any differences. Due to a limited number of studies and significant heterogeneity, only a descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: The search yielded 603 unique citations of which a total of five before-after studies were included. Quality assessment identified potential biases relating to comparability between the pre- and postintervention groups, reliable assessment of outcomes, and an overall lack of information on the intervention (i.e., time point, description, intervention data collection). The type of interventions utilized included clinical decision support tools, clinical practice guidelines, a knowledge translation initiative, and multidisciplinary protocols. Overall, four studies reported a decrease in the relative percentage change in imaging in a specific image modality (22.7%-47.4%) following implementation of the interventions; however, one study reported a 35% increase in patient referrals to radiography, while another study reported a subsequent 15.4% increase in referrals to CT and myelography after implementing an intervention which reduced referrals for simple radiography. DISCUSSION: While imaging of LBP has been identified as a key area of imaging overuse (e.g., Choosing Wisely recommendation), evidence on interventions to reduce image ordering for ED patients with LBP is sparse. There is some evidence to suggest that interventions can reduce the use of simple imaging in LBP in the ED; however, a shift in imaging modality has also been demonstrated. Additional studies employing higher-quality methods and measuring intervention fidelity are strongly recommended to further explore the potential of ED-based interventions to reduce image ordering for this patient population.

Effectiveness of Implementing Evidence-based Interventions to Reduce C-spine Image Ordering in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Appropriate use of imaging for adult patients with cervical spine (C-spine) injuries in the emergency department (ED) is a longstanding issue. Guidance for C-spine ordering exists; however, the effectiveness of the decision support implementation in the ED is not well studied. This systematic review examines the implementation and effectiveness of evidence-based interventions aimed at reducing C-spine imaging in adults presenting to the ED with neck trauma. METHODS: Six electronic databases and the gray literature were searched. Comparative intervention studies were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers screened for study eligibility, study quality, and extracted data. The change in imaging was reported using individual odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effects. RESULTS: A total of 990 unique citations were screened for relevance of which six before-after studies and one randomized controlled trial were included. None of the studies were assessed as high quality. Interventions consisted primarily of locally developed guidelines or established clinical decision rules such as the NEXUS or the Canadian C-spine rule. Overall, implementation of interventions aimed at reducing C-spine image ordering resulted in a statistically significant reduction in imaging (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.51-0.93); however, heterogeneity was high (I2  = 82%). Subgroup analysis revealed no differences between studies that specified enrolling alert and stable patients compared to unspecified trauma (p = 0.81) or between studies employing multifaceted versus nonmultifaceted interventions (p = 0.66). While studies generally provided details on implementation strategies (e.g., teaching sessions, pocket cards, posters, computerized decision support) the effectiveness of these implementation strategies were frequently not reported. CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions to reduce C-spine image ordering in adult patients seen in the ED with neck trauma. Given the national and international focus on improving appropriateness and reducing unnecessary C-spine imaging through campaigns such as Choosing Wisely, additional interventional research in this field is warranted.

Emergency Department Use: Influence of Connection to a Family Physician on ED Use and Attempts to Avoid Presentation.

Some low-acuity emergency department (ED) presentations are potentially avoidable with improved primary care access. The majority of ED patients (74.4%) in this study had a family physician, but the frequency of visits varied substantially. The variable frequency of patients' visits to these providers calls into question the validity of linkage assumptions. Several sociodemographic factors were associated with having a family physician, including female sex, being married/common law, race (Caucasian), being employed over the previous 12 months and having received a flu shot in the past year. These factors need to be explored further.

Low-acuity presentations to the emergency department in Canada: exploring the alternative attempts to avoid presentation.

OBJECTIVE: ED visits have been rising year on year worldwide. It has been suggested that some of these visits could be avoided if low-acuity patients had better primary care access. This study explored patients' efforts to avoid ED presentation and alternative care sought prior to presentation. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients presenting to three urban EDs in Edmonton, Canada, completed a questionnaire collecting demographics, actions attempted to avoid presentation and reasons for presentation. Survey data were cross-referenced to a minimal patient dataset containing ED and demographic information. RESULTS: A total of 1402 patients (66.5%) completed the survey. Although 89.3% of the patients felt that the ED was their best care option, the majority of patients (60.1%) sought alternative care or advice prior to presentation. Men, individuals who presented with injury only, and individuals with less than a high school education were all less likely to seek alternative care. Alternative care actions included visiting a physician (54.1%) or an alternative healthcare professional (eg, chiropractor, physiotherapist, etc; 21.2%), calling physician offices (47%) or the regional health information line (13%). Of those who called their physicians, the majority received advice to present to the ED (67.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Most low-acuity patients attempt to avoid ED presentation by seeking alternative care. This analysis identifies groups of individuals in the study region who are less likely to seek alternative care first and may benefit from targeted interventions/education. Other regions may wish to complete a similar profile to determine which patients are less likely to seek alternative care first.

Emergency Physician Training on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is the most common emergency department (ED) brain injury presentation worldwide. Despite its frequency, practice variation and care gaps exist among emergency physicians (EPs) in diagnosing and appropriately managing mTBI in the ED. The objective of this review was to identify mTBI-specific training undertaken to improve the detection and management of mTBIs by EPs and its impact on practice. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy utilized four bibliographic databases, the gray literature and the keywords concussion, mild traumatic brain injury, medical education, and continuing medical education (CME). To be included, studies were required to report on mTBI training received by practicing EPs at any point during their medical education or career. Studies examining clinical practice guidelines or use of diagnostic tools without active implementation or formal training were not included. Two reviewers screened unique citations for relevance and reviewed the full texts of relevant articles. Two independent researchers extracted data and assessed methodologic quality. At all stages, a third independent reviewer adjudicated discrepancies. RESULTS: Overall, five studies were included from 409 unique results. None of the included studies were of high quality. Identified training on mTBI consisted of three training toolkits, conference presentations and academic journal articles, and pediatric fellowship training. Training primarily occurred as CME and focused on awareness of and management of mTBI; three studies reported physician practice changes, including increases in the use of evidence-based return-to-school and return-to-activity recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The few studies identified addressing mTBI training targeting EPs demonstrate the limited attention given to this issue. The current evidence-to-practice gap in mTBI management places patients at risk for suboptimal care in the ED, and existing mTBI knowledge translation, including education, requires optimization to effectively address the current gap in evidence-based practice for mTBI diagnosis and management in the ED.