Understanding the management of patients with head injury taking warfarin: who should we scan and when? Lessons from the AHEAD study.

Anticoagulated patients represent an important and increasing proportion of the patients with head trauma attending the ED, but there is no international consensus for their appropriate investigation and management. International guidelines vary and are largely based on a small number of studies, which provide poor-quality evidence for the management of patients taking warfarin. This article provides an overview of the clinical research evidence for CT scanning head-injured patients taking warfarin and a discussion of interpretation of risk and acceptable risk. We aim to provide shop floor clinicians with an understanding of the limitations of the evidence in this field and the limitations of applying 'one-size-fits-all' guidelines to individual patients. There is good evidence for a more selective scanning approach to patients with head injuries taking warfarin than is currently recommended by most guidelines. Specifically, patients without any head injury-related symptoms and GCS score 15 have a reduced risk of adverse outcome and may not need to be scanned. We argue that there is evidence to support an individualised approach to decision to CT scan in mild head injuries on warfarin and that clinicians should feel able to discuss risks with patients and sometimes decide not to scan.

Should all anticoagulated patients with head injury receive a CT scan? Decision-analysis modelling of an observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES: It is not currently clear whether all anticoagulated patients with a head injury should receive CT scanning or only those with evidence of traumatic brain injury (eg, loss of consciousness or amnesia). We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of CT for all compared with selective CT use for anticoagulated patients with a head injury. DESIGN: Decision-analysis modelling of data from a multicentre observational study. SETTING: 33 emergency departments in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 3566 adults (aged ≥16 years) who had suffered blunt head injury, were taking warfarin and underwent selective CT scanning. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimated expected benefits in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were the entire cohort to receive a CT scan; estimated increased costs of CT and also the potential cost implications associated with patient survival and improved health. These values were used to estimate the cost per QALY of implementing a strategy of CT for all patients compared with observed practice based on guidelines recommending selective CT use. RESULTS: Of the 1420 of 3534 patients (40%) who did not receive a CT scan, 7 (0.5%) suffered a potentially avoidable head injury-related adverse outcome. If CT scanning had been performed in all patients, appropriate treatment could have gained 3.41 additional QALYs but would have incurred £193 149 additional treatment costs and £130 683 additional CT costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £94 895/QALY gained for unselective compared with selective CT use is markedly above the threshold of £20-30 000/QALY used by the UK National Institute for Care Excellence to determine cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: CT scanning for all anticoagulated patients with head injury is not cost-effective compared with selective use of CT scanning based on guidelines recommending scanning only for those with evidence of traumatic brain injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 02461498.

The impact of senior doctor assessment at triage on emergency department performance measures: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

STUDY QUESTION: To determine if placing a senior doctor at triage versus standard single nurse in a hospital emergency department (ED) improves ED performance by reviewing evidence from comparative design studies using several quality indicators. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), Web of Science, Clinical Trials Registry website. In addition, references from included studies and citation searches were used to identify relevant studies. REVIEW METHODS: Databases were searched for comparative studies examining the role of senior doctor triage (SDT), published from 1994 to 2014. Senior doctor was defined as a qualified medical doctor who completed high specialty training in emergency medicine. Articles with a primary aim to investigate the effect of SDT on ED quality indicators such as waiting time (WT), length of stay (LOS), left without being seen (LWBS) and left without treatment complete (LWTC) were included. Articles examining the adverse events and cost associated with SDT were also included. Only studies with a control group, either in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) or in an observational study with historical controls, were included. The systematic literature search was followed by assessment of relevance and risk of bias in each individual study fulfilling the inclusion criteria using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) bias tool. Data extraction was based on a form designed and piloted by the authors for dichotomous and continuous data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of homogenous data were performed. RESULTS: Of 4506 articles identified, 25 relevant studies were retrieved; 12 were of the weak pre-post study design, 9 were of moderate quality and 4 were of strong quality. The majority of the studies revealed improvements in ED performance measures favouring SDT. Pooled results from two Canadian RCTs showed a significant reduction in LOS of medium acuity patients (weighted means difference (WMD) -26.26 min, 95% CI -38.50 to -14.01). Another two RCTs revealed a significant reduction in WT (WMD -26.17 min, 95% CI -31.68 to -20.65). LWBS was reduced in two Canadian RCTs (risk ratio (RR)=0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94). This was echoed by the majority of pre-post study designs. SDT did not change the occurrence of adverse events. No clear benefit of SDT in terms of patient satisfaction or cost effectiveness could be identified. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that SDT can be an effective measure to enhance ED performance, although cost versus benefit analysis is needed. The potential high risk of bias in the evidence identified, however, mandates more robust multicentred studies to confirm these findings.