Redisplacement of reduced distal radius fractures in adults: does the type of casting play a role? The CAST study, a multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial.

Aims: It is not clear which type of casting provides the best initial treatment in adults with a distal radial fracture. Given that between 32% and 64% of adequately reduced fractures redisplace during immobilization in a cast, preventing redisplacement and a disabling malunion or secondary surgery is an aim of treatment. In this study, we investigated whether circumferential casting leads to fewer the redisplacement of fewer fractures and better one-year outcomes compared with plaster splinting. Methods: In a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, two-period cluster-randomized superiority trial, we compared these two types of casting. Recruitment took place in ten hospitals. Eligible patients aged ≥ 18 years with a displaced distal radial fracture, which was acceptably aligned after closed reduction, were included. The primary outcome measure was the rate of redisplacement within five weeks of immobilization. Secondary outcomes were the rate of complaints relating to the cast, clinical outcomes at three months, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (using the numerical rating scale (NRS), the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), and Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) scores), and adverse events such as the development of compartment syndrome during one year of follow-up. We used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression for the analysis of the primary outcome measure. Results: The study included 420 patients. There was no significant difference between the rate of redisplacement of the fracture between the groups: 47% (n = 88) for those treated with a plaster splint and 49% (n = 90) for those treated with a circumferential cast (odds ratio 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.70); p = 0.854). Patients treated in a plaster splint reported significantly more pain than those treated with a circumferential cast, during the first week of treatment (estimated mean NRS 4.7 (95% CI 4.3 to 5.1) vs 4.1 (95% CI 3.7 to 4.4); p = 0.014). The rate of complaints relating to the cast, clinical outcomes and PROMs did not differ significantly between the groups (p > 0.05). Compartment syndrome did not occur. Conclusion: Circumferential casting did not result in a significantly different rate of redisplacement of the fracture compared with the use of a plaster splint. There were comparable outcomes in both groups.

The Effect of Written and Video Discharge Instructions After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury on Healthcare Costs and Productivity Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To compare healthcare and productivity costs between patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) who received verbal discharge instructions only and patients who received an additional flyer with or without video instructions. SETTING: Emergency departments (EDs) of 6 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1155 adult patients with mTBI (384 with verbal instructions; 771 with additional flyer with or without video instructions) were included. DESIGN: Cost study with comparison between usual care and intervention. METHODS: Medical and productivity costs up to 3 months after presentation at the ED were compared between mTBI patients with usual care and mTBI patients who received the intervention. RESULTS: Mean medical costs per mTBI patient were slightly higher for the verbal instructions-only cohort (€337 vs €315), whereas mean productivity costs were significantly higher for the flyer/video cohort (€1625 vs €899). Higher productivity costs were associated with higher working age, injury severity, and postconcussion symptoms. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the implementation of flyer (and video) discharge instructions for patients with mTBI who present at the ED increased reports of postconcussion symptoms and reduced medical costs, whereas productivity costs were found to be higher for the working population in the first 3 months after the sustained head injury.

Effect of Video Discharge Instructions for Patients With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We measure the effect of video discharge instructions on postconcussion symptoms in patients with mild traumatic brain injury in the emergency department. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted in which patients with mild traumatic brain injury were randomly assigned to either intervention (verbal, written, and video discharge information) or control (verbal and written discharge information only). All patients were interviewed 1 week and 3 months from randomization. Primary outcome measure was the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were correct recall, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, health-related quality of life (12-Item Short Form Health Survey), return visits, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 2,883 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 381 were included in the control group and 390 in the video intervention group. Difference in mean total Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire score between the 2 groups was 0.2 at 1 week and 0.3 at 3 months after traumatic brain injury (estimated effect -0.7; 95% confidence interval -2.1 to 0.7). There was also no difference in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, recall, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey score, return visits, and patient satisfaction between the control and intervention group. CONCLUSION: Severity of postconcussion symptoms in patients with mild traumatic brain injury did not improve by adding video information to standard care. Also, there was no difference in recall, health-related quality of life, return visits, and patient satisfaction between the control and intervention groups.

The impact of teach-back on patient recall and understanding of discharge information in the emergency department: the Emergency Teach-Back (EM-TeBa) study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has demonstrated that patients leaving the emergency department (ED) have poor recall and understanding of their discharge information. The teach-back method is an easy technique that can be used to check, and if necessary correct, inaccurate recall. In our study, we aimed to determine the direct and short-term impact of teach-back as well as feasibility for routine use in the ED. METHODS: A prospective cohort study in an urban, non-academic ED was performed which included adult patients who were discharged from the ED with a new medical problem. The control group with the standard discharge was compared to the intervention group using the teach-back method. Recall and comprehension scores were assessed immediately after discharge and 2-4 days afterward by phone, using four standardized questions concerning their diagnosis, treatment, follow-up care, and return precautions. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-three patients were included in the study, 239 in the control group, and 244 in the intervention group. Patients receiving teach-back had higher scores on all domains immediately after discharge and on three domains after 2-4 days (6.3% versus 4.5%). After teach-back, the proportion of patients that left the ED with a comprehension deficit declined from 49 to 11.9%. Deficits were most common for return precautions in both groups (41.3% versus 8.1%). Teach-back conversation took 1:39 min, versus an average of 3:11 min for a regular discharge interview. CONCLUSION: Teach-back is an efficient and non-time-consuming method to improve patients' immediate and short-term recall and comprehension of discharge information in the ED.

Minor head injury: CT-based strategies for management--a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of using selective computed tomographic (CT) strategies with that of performing CT in all patients with minor head injury (MHI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The internal review board approved the study; written informed consent was obtained from all interviewed patients. Five strategies were evaluated, with CT performed in all patients with MHI; selectively according to the New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), or CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule; or in no patients. A decision tree was used to analyze short-term costs and effectiveness, and a Markov model was used to analyze long-term costs and effectiveness. n-Way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and value-of-information (VOI) analysis were performed. Data from the multicenter CHIP Study involving 3181 patients with MHI were used. Outcome measures were first-year and lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Study results showed that performing CT selectively according to the CCHR or the CHIP rule could lead to substantial U.S. cost savings ($120 million and $71 million, respectively), and the CCHR was the most cost-effective at reference-case analysis. When the prediction rule had lower than 97% sensitivity for the identification of patients who required neurosurgery, performing CT in all patients was cost-effective. The CHIP rule was most likely to be cost-effective. At VOI analysis, the expected value of perfect information was $7 billion, mainly because of uncertainty about long-term functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: Selecting patients with MHI for CT renders cost savings and may be cost-effective, provided the sensitivity for the identification of patients who require neurosurgery is extremely high. Uncertainty regarding long-term functional outcomes after MHI justifies the routine use of CT in all patients with these injuries.