Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine willingness among people incarcerated in 3 Canadian federal prisons: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Maximizing uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines among people in prison is essential in mitigating future outbreaks. We aimed to determine factors associated with willingness to receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination before vaccine availability. METHODS: We chose 3 Canadian federal prisons based on their low uptake of influenza vaccines in 2019-2020. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire on knowledge, attitude and beliefs toward vaccines. The primary outcome was participant willingness to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, measured using a 5-point Likert scale to the question, "If a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine becomes available in prison, how likely are you to get vaccinated?" We calculated the association of independent variables (age, ethnicity, chronic health conditions, 2019-2020 influenza vaccine uptake and prison security level), identified a priori, with vaccine willingness using logistic regression and crude and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We recruited 240 participants from Mar. 31 to Apr. 19, 2021 (median age 46 years; 19.2% female, 25.8% Indigenous). Of these, 178 (74.2%) were very willing to receive a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Participants who received the 2019-2020 influenza vaccine (adjusted OR 5.20, 95% CI 2.43-12.00) had higher odds of vaccine willingness than those who did not; those who self-identified as Indigenous (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.60) and in medium- or maximum-security prisons (adjusted OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12-0.92) had lower odds of vaccine willingness than those who identified as white or those in minimum-security prisons, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Most participants were very willing to receive vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 before vaccine roll-out. Vaccine promotion campaigns should target groups with low vaccine willingness (i.e., those who have declined influenza vaccine, identify as Indigenous or reside in high-security prisons).

Reasons for COVID-19 vaccine refusal among people incarcerated in Canadian federal prisons.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine uptake rates have been historically low in correctional settings. To better understand vaccine hesitancy in these high-risk settings, we explored reasons for COVID-19 vaccine refusal among people in federal prisons. METHODS: Three maximum security all-male federal prisons in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario (Canada) were chosen, representing prisons with the highest proportions of COVID-19 vaccine refusal. Using a qualitative descriptive design and purposive sampling, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with incarcerated people who had previously refused at least one COVID-19 vaccine until data saturation was achieved. An inductive-deductive thematic analysis of audio-recorded interview transcripts was conducted using the Conceptual Model of Vaccine Hesitancy. RESULTS: Between May 19-July 8, 2021, 14 participants were interviewed (median age: 30 years; n = 7 Indigenous, n = 4 visible minority, n = 3 White). Individual-, interpersonal-, and system-level factors were identified. Three were particularly relevant to the correctional setting: 1) Risk perception: participants perceived that they were at lower risk of COVID-19 due to restricted visits and interactions; 2) Health care services in prison: participants reported feeling "punished" and stigmatized due to strict COVID-19 restrictions, and failed to identify personal benefits of vaccination due to the lack of incentives; 3) Universal distrust: participants expressed distrust in prison employees, including health care providers. INTERPRETATION: Reasons for vaccine refusal among people in prison are multifaceted. Educational interventions could seek to address COVID-19 risk misconceptions in prison settings. However, impact may be limited if trust is not fostered and if incentives are not considered in vaccine promotion.

Barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among people incarcerated in Canadian federal prisons: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Canadian correctional institutions have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination given the multiple outbreaks that have occurred since the start of the pandemic. Given historically low vaccine uptake, we aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination acceptability among people incarcerated in federal prisons. METHODS: Three federal prisons in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia (Canada) were chosen based on previously low influenza vaccine uptake among those incarcerated. Using a qualitative design, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a diverse sample (gender, age, and ethnicity) of incarcerated people. An inductive-deductive analysis of audio-recorded interview transcripts was conducted to identify and categorize barriers and facilitators within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: From March 22-29, 2021, a total of 15 participants (n = 5 per site; n = 5 women; median age = 43 years) were interviewed, including five First Nations people and six people from other minority groups. Eleven (73%) expressed a desire to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, including two who previously refused influenza vaccination. We identified five thematic barriers across three TDF domains: social influences (receiving strict recommendations, believing in conspiracies to harm), beliefs about consequences (believing that infection control measures will not be fully lifted, concerns with vaccine-related side effects), and knowledge (lack of vaccine-specific information), and eight thematic facilitators across five TDF domains: environmental context and resources (perceiving correctional employees as sources of outbreaks, perceiving challenges to prevention measures), social influences (receiving recommendations from trusted individuals), beliefs about consequences (seeking individual and collective protection, believing in a collective "return to normal", believing in individual privileges), knowledge (reassurance about vaccine outcomes), and emotions (having experienced COVID-19-related stress). CONCLUSIONS: Lack of information and misinformation were important barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptability among people incarcerated in Canadian federal prisons. This suggests that educational interventions, delivered by trusted health care providers, may improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake going forward.

Evaluating physician awareness of common health care costs in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Health care costs are on the rise in Canada and the sustainability of our health care system is at risk. As gatekeepers to patient care, emergency department (ED) physicians have a direct impact on health care costs. We aimed to identify current levels of cost awareness among ED physicians. By understanding the current level of physician cost awareness, we hope to identify areas where cost education would provide the greatest benefit in reducing ordering costs. METHODS: We conducted a survey evaluating current awareness of common ordering costs among ED physicians from two tertiary teaching hospitals. Our study population was comprised of 124, certified emergency medicine staff physicians and emergency medicine resident physicians. Our survey asked ED physicians to estimate the costs of 41 items across four categories of day-to-day ordering: imaging investigations, materials, laboratory tests, and pharmaceuticals. Items were selected based on frequency of use, availability of cost-effective alternatives, and tests considered to be "low yield". The primary outcome was percentages of underestimates, correct estimates, and overestimates for ED costs among ED physicians. RESULTS: The average percentage of correct cost estimates among ED physicians was 14% across the four ordering categories. Where cost-effective alternatives exist, ED physicians overestimated the cost of the more cost-effective item. They also underestimated the cost of low-yield tests.InterpretationED physicians demonstrated limited cost awareness of common health care costs. Further studies that characterize utilization of hospital resources based on ED physician awareness of cost-effective alternatives and cost of "low yield" tests are needed.

Physician performance feedback in a Canadian academic center.

Purpose This paper aims at the implementation and early evaluation of a comprehensive, formative annual physician performance feedback process in a large academic health-care organization. Design/methodology/approach A mixed methods approach was used to introduce a formative feedback process to provide physicians with comprehensive feedback on performance and to support professional development. This initiative responded to organization-wide engagement surveys through which physicians identified effective performance feedback as a priority. In 2013, physicians primarily affiliated with the organization participated in a performance feedback process, and physician satisfaction and participant perceptions were explored through participant survey responses and physician leader focus groups. Training was required for physician leaders prior to conducting performance feedback discussions. Findings This process was completed by 98 per cent of eligible physicians, and 30 per cent completed an evaluation survey. While physicians endorsed the concept of a formative feedback process, process improvement opportunities were identified. Qualitative analysis revealed the following process improvement themes: simplify the tool, ensure leaders follow process, eliminate redundancies in data collection (through academic or licensing requirements) and provide objective quality metrics. Following physician leader training on performance feedback, 98 per cent of leaders who completed an evaluation questionnaire agreed or strongly agreed that the performance feedback process was useful and that training objectives were met. Originality/value This paper introduces a physician performance feedback model, leadership training approach and first-year implementation outcomes. The results of this study will be useful to health administrators and physician leaders interested in implementing physician performance feedback or improving physician engagement.

Quality gaps identified through mortality review.

BACKGROUND: Hospital mortality rate is a common measure of healthcare quality. Morbidity and mortality meetings are common but there are few reports of hospital-wide mortality-review processes to provide understanding of quality-of-care problems associated with patient deaths. OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation and results from an institution-wide mortality-review process. DESIGN: A nurse and a physician independently reviewed every death that occurred at our multisite teaching institution over a 3-month period. Deaths judged by either reviewer to be unanticipated or to have any opportunity for improvement were reviewed by a multidisciplinary committee. We report characteristics of patients with unanticipated death or opportunity for improved care and summarise the opportunities for improved care. RESULTS: Over a 3-month period, we reviewed all 427 deaths in our hospital in detail; 33 deaths (7.7%) were deemed unanticipated and 100 (23.4%) were deemed to be associated with an opportunity for improvement. We identified 97 opportunities to improve care. The most common gap in care was: 'goals of care not discussed or the discussion was inadequate' (n=25 (25.8%)) and 'delay or failure to achieve a timely diagnosis' (n=8 (8.3%)). Patients who had opportunities for improvement had longer length of stay and a lower baseline predicted risk of death in hospital. Nurse and physician reviewers spent approximately 142 h reviewing cases outside of committee meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution-wide mortality review found many quality gaps among decedents, in particular inadequate discussion of goals of care.

Implementation of a structured hospital-wide morbidity and mortality rounds model.

IMPORTANCE: There is a paucity of literature on the quality and effectiveness of institutional morbidity & mortality (M&M) rounds processes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to implement and evaluate the effectiveness of a hospital-wide structured M&M rounds model at improving the quality of M&M rounds across multiple specialties. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a prospective interventional study involving 24 clinical groups (1584 physicians) at a tertiary care teaching hospital from January 2013 to June 2015. INTERVENTION: We implemented the published Ottowa M&M Model (OM3): appropriate case selection, cognitive/system issues analyses, interprofessional participation, dissemination of lessons and effector mechanisms. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We created an OM3 scoring index reflecting these elements to measure the quality of M&M rounds. Secondary outcomes include explicit discussions of cognitive/system issues and resultant action items. RESULTS: OM3 scores for all participating groups improved significantly from a median of 12.0/24 (95% CI 10 to 14) to 20.0/24 (95% CI 18 to 21). An increased frequency of in-rounds discussion around cognitive biases (pre 154/417 (37%), post 256/466 (55%); p<0.05) and system issues (pre 175/417 (42%), post 259/466 (62%); p<0.05) were reported by participants via online surveys postintervention, while in-person surveys throughout the intervention period demonstrated even higher frequencies (cognitive biases 1222/1437 (85%); system issues 1250/1437 (87%)). We found 45 action items resulting directly from M&M rounds postintervention, compared with none preintervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of a structured model enhanced the quality of M&M rounds with demonstrable policy improvements hospital wide. The OM3 can be feasibly implemented at other hospitals to effectively improve quality of M&M rounds across different specialties.

CAEP 2015 Academic Symposium: Leadership within the emergency medicine academic community and beyond.

OBJECTIVES: A panel of emergency medicine (EM) leaders endeavoured to define the key elements of leadership and its models, as well as to formulate consensus recommendations to build and strengthen academic leadership in the Canadian EM community in the areas of mentorship, education, and resources. METHODS: The expert panel comprised EM leaders from across Canada and met regularly by teleconference over the course of 9 months. From the breadth of backgrounds and experience, as well as a literature review and the development of a leadership video series, broad themes for recommendations around the building and strengthening of EM leadership were presented at the CAEP 2015 Academic Symposium held in Edmonton, Alberta. Feedback from the attendees (about 80 emergency physicians interested in leadership) was sought. Subsequently, draft recommendations were developed by the panel through attendee feedback, further review of the leadership video series, and expert opinion. The recommendations were distributed to the CAEP Academic Section for further feedback and updated by consensus of the expert panel. RESULTS: The methods informed the panel who framed recommendations around four themes: 1) leadership preparation and training, 2) self-reflection/emotional intelligence, 3) academic leadership skills, and 4) gender balance in academic EM leadership. The recommendations aimed to support and nurture the next generation of academic EM leaders in Canada and included leadership mentors, availability of formal educational courses/programs in leadership, self-directed education of aspiring leaders, creation of a Canadian subgroup with the AACEM/SAEM Chair Development Program, and gender balance in leadership roles. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations serve as a roadmap for all EM leaders (and aspiring leaders) to build on their success, inspire their colleagues, and foster the next generation of Canadian EM academic leaders.

Enabling front line-driven perioperative quality improvement through organizational infrastructure built around the Comprehensive Unit Based Safety Program.

SUMMARY: Many surgical departments are interested in quality improvement (QI). For sustainable success, front-line involvement is crucial for improving culture. Without improved culture, any QI strategy will be a struggle. Designing an infrastructure to support these principles is important. We describe our process creating this infrastructure, the multidisciplinary teams that drive change in our department and some of the processes and outcomes we have been able to improve.

Effectiveness and safety of short-stay units in the emergency department: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Overcrowding is a serious and ongoing challenge in Canadian hospital emergency departments (EDs) that has been shown to have negative consequences for patient outcomes. The American College of Emergency Physicians recommends observation/short-stay units as a possible solution to alleviate this problem. However, the most recent systematic review assessing short-stay units shows that there is limited synthesized evidence to support this recommendation; it is over a decade old and has important methodologic limitations. The aim of this study was to conduct a more methodologically rigorous systematic review to update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of short-stay units, compared with usual care, on hospital and patient outcomes. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ABI/INFOM, and EconLit databases and gray literature sources. Randomized controlled trials of ED short-stay units (stay of 72 hours or less) were compared with usual care (i.e., not provided in a short-stay unit), for adult patients. Risk-of-bias assessments were conducted. Important decision-making (gradable) outcomes were patient outcomes, quality of care, utilization of and access to services, resource use, health system-related outcomes, economic outcomes, and adverse events. RESULTS: Ten reports of five studies were included, all of which compared short-stay units with inpatient care. Studies had small sample sizes and were collectively at a moderate risk of bias. Most outcomes were only reported by one study and the remaining outcomes were reported by two to four studies. No deaths were reported. Three of the four included studies reporting length of stay found a significant reduction among short-stay unit patients, and one of the two studies reporting readmission rates found a significantly lower rate for short-stay unit patients. All four economic evaluations indicated that short-stay units were a cost-saving intervention compared to inpatient care from both hospital and health care system perspectives. Results were mixed for outcomes related to quality of care and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient evidence exists to make conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of short-stay units, compared with inpatient care.

Combination paracetamol and ibuprofen for pain relief after oral surgery: a dose ranging study.

PURPOSE: Combined paracetamol and ibuprofen has been shown to be more effective than either constituent alone for acute pain in adults, but the dose-response has not been confirmed. The aim of this study was to define the analgesic dose-response relationship of different potential doses of a fixed dose combination containing paracetamol and ibuprofen after third molar surgery. METHODS: Patients aged 16 to 60 years with moderate or severe pain after the removal of at least two impacted third molars were randomised to receive double-blind study medication as two tablets every 6 h for 24 h of either of the following: two tablet, combination full dose (paracetamol 1000 mg and ibuprofen 300 mg); one tablet, combination half dose (paracetamol 500 mg and ibuprofen 150 mg); half a tablet, combination quarter dose (paracetamol 250 mg and ibuprofen 75 mg); or placebo. The primary outcome measure was the time-adjusted summed pain intensity difference over 24 h (SPID 24) calculated from the 100-mm VAS assessments collected over multiple time points for the study duration. RESULTS: Data from 159 patients were included in the analysis. Mean (SD) time-adjusted SPID over 24 h were full-dose combination 20.1 (18.0), half dose combination 20.4 (20.8), quarter dose combination 19.3 (20.0) and placebo 6.6 (19.8). There was a significant overall effect of dose (p = 0.002) on the primary outcome. Planned pairwise comparisons showed that all combination dose groups were superior to placebo (full dose vs. placebo p = 0.004, half dose vs. placebo p = 0.002, quarter dose vs. placebo p = 0.002). The overall effect of dose was also significant for maximum VAS pain intensity score (p = 0.048), response rate (p = 0.0094), percentage of participants requiring rescue (p = 0.025) and amount of rescue (p < 0.001). No significant dose effect was found for time to peak reduction in VAS or time to meaningful pain relief. The majority of adverse events recorded were of mild (52.75%) or moderate (40.16%) severity and not related (30.7%) or unlikely related (57.5%) to the study medication. CONCLUSION: All doses of the combination provide safe superior pain relief to placebo in adult patients following third molar removal surgery.

Enhancing the quality of morbidity and mortality rounds: the Ottawa M&M model.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a structured morbidity and mortality (M&M) rounds model through an innovative educational intervention. METHODS: The authors engaged the Departments of Emergency Medicine (EM) and Trauma Services at a tertiary care teaching hospital. A needs assessment was performed; the Ottawa M&M rounds model was developed, implemented, and then evaluated as a four-part intervention. This consisted of: 1) physician training on case selection and analysis, 2) engaging interprofessional members, 3) disseminating lessons learned, and 4) creating an administrative pathway for acting on issues identified through the M&M rounds. The measures of intervention feasibility included the proportion of sessions adherent to the new model and M&M rounds attendance. Pre- and postintervention surveys of presenters and attendees were used to determine intervention acceptability. M&M presentation content was reviewed to determine the most frequently adopted components of the model. RESULTS: Nine of 14 (64.3%) sessions were adherent to three of four components of the Ottawa M&M Model. Of those M&M attendees who responded to the survey (796 of 912, 87.2%), improvements were found in M&M rounds attendance as well as perceived effect on clinical practice at both individual and departmental levels. Thirty-seven case presentations were analyzed and improvements postintervention were found in appropriate case selection and recognition of cognitive and system issues. CONCLUSIONS: The Ottawa M&M Model was a feasible intervention that was perceived to be effective by both presenters and attendees. The authors believe that this could be readily applied to any hospital department seeking to enhance quality of care and patient safety.

Leading quality through the development of a multi-year corporate quality plan: sharing The Ottawa Hospital experience.

This article discusses the background and process for developing a multi-year corporate quality plan. The Ottawa Hospital's goal is to be a top 10% performer in quality and patient safety in North America. In order to create long-term measurable and sustainable changes in the quality of patient care, The Ottawa Hospital embarked on the development of a three-year strategic corporate quality plan. This was accomplished by engaging the organization at all levels and defining quality frameworks, aligning with internal and external expectations, prioritizing strategic goals, articulating performance measurements and reporting to stakeholders while maintaining a transparent communication process. The plan was developed through an iterative process that engaged a broad base of health professionals, physicians, support staff, administration and senior management. A literature review of quality frameworks was undertaken, a Quality Plan Working Group was established, 25 key stakeholder interviews were conducted and 48 clinical and support staff consultations were held. The intent was to gather information on current quality initiatives and challenges encountered and to prioritize corporate goals and then create the quality plan. Goals were created and then prioritized through an affinity exercise. Action plans were developed for each goal and included objectives, tasks and activities, performance measures (structure, process and outcome), accountabilities and timelines. This collaborative methodology resulted in the development of a three-year quality plan. Six corporate goals were outlined by the tenets of the quality framework for The Ottawa Hospital: access to care, appropriate care (effective and efficient), safe care and satisfaction with care. Each of the six corporate goals identified objectives and supporting action plans with accountabilities outlining what would be accomplished in years one, two and three. The three-year quality plan was approved by senior management and the board in April 2009. This process has supported The Ottawa Hospital's journey of excellence through the creation of a quality plan that will enable long-term measurable and sustainable changes in the quality of patient care. It also engaged healthcare providers who aim to achieve more measured quality patient care, engaged practitioners through collaboration resulting in both alignment of goals and outcomes and allowed for greater commitment by those responsible for achieving quality goals.

Exploring microbial genome sequences to identify protein families on the grid.

The analysis of microbial genome sequences can identify protein families that provide potential drug targets for new antibiotics. With the rapid accumulation of newly sequenced genomes, this analysis has become a computationally intensive and data-intensive problem. This paper describes the development of a Web-service-enabled, component-based, architecture to support the large-scale comparative analysis of complete microbial genome sequences and the subsequent identification of orthologues and protein families (Microbase). The system is coordinated through the use of Web-service-based notifications and integrates distributed computing resources together with genomic databases to realize all-against-all comparisons for a large volume of genome sequences and to present the data in a computationally amenable format through a Web service interface. We demonstrate the use of the system in searching for orthologues and candidate protein families, which ultimately could lead to the identification of potential therapeutic targets.

Comparison between interpersonal violence and motor vehicle accidents in the aetiology of maxillofacial fractures.

BACKGROUND: Maxillofacial fractures commonly present to the emergency department, interpersonal violence (IPV) and motor vehicle accidents (MVA) being two of the main causes. There is a changing trend in these two aetiologies, which is reflected in a change in demographics, the pattern of fractures and the treatment of maxillofacial fractures. METHODS: A prospective database of patients presenting to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery service at Christchurch Hospital during an 11-year period was reviewed. Of a total of 2581 patients with radiographic confirmation of facial fractures, 1135 patients sustained injuries following IPV and 286 patients following MVA. Variables examined include demographics, type of fracture, mode of injury, and treatment. RESULTS: The male:female ratio was 9:1 in patients following IPV and 7:3 following MVA; 16-30-year-olds accounted for greatest proportion of injuries (48 and 68%, respectively). There was alcohol involvement in 87% of fractures caused by IPV, compared with 58% for MVA. Mid-facial fractures were more frequently seen in MVA, whereas mandibular fractures were more prevalent in IPV. Sixty-two per cent of the patients from MVA required active treatment and 87% were hospitalized, compared with 56% actively treated and 59% hospitalized in the IPV group. CONCLUSION: Interpersonal violence has continued to be the main cause of maxillofacial fractures. Both IPV and MVA commonly involve alcohol and young male adults. They frequently require hospitalization and surgical intervention.

Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in patients with minor head injury.

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.

Retrospective application of the NEXUS low-risk criteria for cervical spine radiography in Canadian emergency departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and potential impact of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) low-risk criteria for cervical spine radiography, when applied in Canadian emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: The Canadian C-Spine Rule derivation study was a prospective cohort study conducted in 10 Canadian EDs that recruited alert and stable adult trauma patients. Physicians completed a 20-item data form for each patient and performed interobserver assessments when feasible. The prospective assessments included the 5 individual NEXUS criteria but not an explicit interpretation of the overall need for radiography according to the criteria. Patients underwent plain radiography, flexion-extension views, and computed tomography at the discretion of the treating physician. Patients who did not have radiography were followed up with a structured outcome assessment by telephone to determine clinically important cervical spine injury, a previously validated outcome measurement. Analyses included sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence interval (CI), kappa coefficient, and potential radiography rates. RESULTS: Among 8,924 patients, 151 (1.7%) patients had an important cervical spine injury. The combined NEXUS criteria identified important cervical spine injury with a sensitivity of 92.7% (95% CI 87% to 96%) and a specificity of 37.8% (95% CI 37% to 39%). Application of the NEXUS criteria would have potentially reduced cervical spine radiography rates by 6.1% from the actual rate of 68.9% to 62.8%. Of 11 patients with important injuries not identified, 2 were treated with internal fixation and 3 with a halo. CONCLUSION: This retrospective validation found the NEXUS low-risk criteria to be less sensitive than previously reported. The NEXUS low-risk criteria should be further explicitly and prospectively evaluated for accuracy and reliability before widespread clinical use outside of the United States.

The Canadian C-spine rule versus the NEXUS low-risk criteria in patients with trauma.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian C-Spine (cervical-spine) Rule (CCR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Low-Risk Criteria (NLC) are decision rules to guide the use of cervical-spine radiography in patients with trauma. It is unclear how the two decision rules compare in terms of clinical performance. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study in nine Canadian emergency departments comparing the CCR and NLC as applied to alert patients with trauma who were in stable condition. The CCR and NLC were interpreted by 394 physicians for patients before radiography. RESULTS: Among the 8283 patients, 169 (2.0 percent) had clinically important cervical-spine injuries. In 845 (10.2 percent) of the patients, physicians did not evaluate range of motion as required by the CCR algorithm. In analyses that excluded these indeterminate cases, the CCR was more sensitive than the NLC (99.4 percent vs. 90.7 percent, P<0.001) and more specific (45.1 percent vs. 36.8 percent, P<0.001) for injury, and its use would have resulted in lower radiography rates (55.9 percent vs. 66.6 percent, P<0.001). In secondary analyses that included all patients, the sensitivity and specificity of CCR, assuming that the indeterminate cases were all positive, were 99.4 percent and 40.4 percent, respectively (P<0.001 for both comparisons with the NLC). Assuming that the CCR was negative for all indeterminate cases, these rates were 95.3 percent (P=0.09 for the comparison with the NLC) and 50.7 percent (P=0.001). The CCR would have missed 1 patient and the NLC would have missed 16 patients with important injuries. CONCLUSIONS: For alert patients with trauma who are in stable condition, the CCR is superior to the NLC with respect to sensitivity and specificity for cervical-spine injury, and its use would result in reduced rates of radiography.

The Canadian C-spine rule performs better than unstructured physician judgment.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: We compare the predictive accuracy of emergency physicians' unstructured clinical judgment to the Canadian C-Spine rule. METHODS: This prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted at 10 Canadian urban academic emergency departments. Included in the study were alert, stable, adult patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 and trauma to the head or neck. This was a substudy of the Canadian C-Spine and CT Head Study. Eligible patients were prospectively evaluated before radiography. Physicians estimated the probability of unstable cervical spine injury from 0% to 100% according to clinical judgment alone and filled out a data form. Interobserver assessments were done when feasible. Patients underwent cervical spine radiography or follow-up to determine clinically important cervical spine injuries. Analyses included comparison of areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the kappa coefficient. RESULTS: During 18 months, 6265 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 36.6 years (range 16 to 97 years), and 50.1% were men. Sixty-four (1%) patients had a clinically important injury. The physicians' kappa for a 0% predicted probability of injury was 0.46 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.65). The respective areas under the ROC curve for predicting cervical spine injury were 0.85 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89) for physician judgment and 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92) for the Canadian C-Spine rule (P <.05). With a threshold of 0% predicted probability of injury, the respective indices of accuracy for physicians and the Canadian C-Spine rule were sensitivity 92.2% versus 100% (P <.001) and specificity 53.9% versus 44.0% (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Interobserver agreement of unstructured clinical judgment for predicting clinically important cervical spine injury is only fair, and the sensitivity is unacceptably low. The Canadian C-Spine rule was better at detecting clinically important injuries with a sensitivity of 100%. Prospective validation has recently been completed and should permit widespread use of the Canadian C-Spine rule.