Melnick, Edward R

Abstract Background The validated Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Network (PECARN) rule helps determine the relevance of a head computerized tomography (CT) for children with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). We sought to estimate the potential overuse of head CT within two Canadian emergency departments (EDs). Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of children seen in 2016 in a paediatric Level I (site 1) and a general Level II (site 2) trauma centre. We reviewed charts to determine the appropriateness of head CT use according to the PECARN rule in a random subset of children presenting with head trauma. Simple descriptive statistics were applied. Results One thousand five hundred and forty-six eligible patients younger than 17 years consulted during the study period. Of the 203 randomly selected cases per setting, 16 (7.9%) and 24 (12%), respectively from sites 1 and 2 had a head CT performed. Based on the PECARN rule, we estimated the overuse for the younger group (<2 years) to be below 3% for both hospitals without significant difference between them. For the older group (≥2 years), the overuse rate was higher at site 2 (9.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.8 to 17% versus 1.2%, 95% CI: 0.2 to 6.5%, P=0.03). Conclusion Both EDs demonstrated overuse rates below 10% although it was higher for the older group at site 2. Such low rates can potentially be explained by the university affiliation of both hospitals and by two Canadian organizations working to raise awareness among physicians about the overuse of diagnostic tools and dangers inherent to radiation.

AbstractDecision aids are evidenced‐based tools designed to increase patient understanding of medical options and possible outcomes, facilitate conversation between patients and clinicians, and improve patient engagement. Decision aids have been used for shared decision making (SDM) interventions outside of the ED setting for more than a decade. Their use in the ED has only recently begun to be studied. This article provides background on this topic and the conclusions of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine consensus conference SDM in practice work group regarding “Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy‐Relevant, Patient‐Centered Research Agenda.” The goal was to determine a prioritized research agenda for the development and testing of SDM interventions for use in emergency care that was most important to patients, clinicians, caregivers, and other key stakeholders. Using the nominal group technique, the consensus working group proposed prioritized research questions in six key domains: 1) content (i.e., clinical scenario or decision area), 2) level of evidence available, 3) tool design strategies, 4) risk communication, 5) stakeholders, and 6) outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundOveruse of computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury continues despite developed and rigorously validated clinical decision rules like the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR). Adherence to this sensitive and specific rule could decrease the number of CT scans performed in minor head injury by 35%. But in practice, the CCHR has failed to reduce testing, despite its accurate performance.ObjectivesThe objective was to identify nonclinical, human factors that promote or inhibit the appropriate use of CT in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with minor head injury.MethodsThis was a qualitative study in three phases, each with interview guides developed by a multidisciplinary team. Subjects were recruited from patients treated and released with minor head injuries and providers in an urban academic ED and a satellite community ED. Focus groups of patients (four groups, 22 subjects total) and providers (three groups, 22 subjects total) were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. The findings from the focus groups were triangulated with a cognitive task analysis, including direct observation in the ED (>150 hours), and individual semistructured interviews using the critical decision method with four senior physician subject matter experts. These experts are recognized by their peers for their skill in safely minimizing testing while maintaining patient safety and engagement. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and notes were taken by two independent note takers. Notes were entered into ATLAS.ti and analyzed using the constant comparative method of grounded theory, an iterative coding process to determine themes. Data were double‐coded and examined for discrepancies to establish consensus.ResultsFive core domains emerged from the analysis: establishing trust, anxiety (patient and provider), constraints related to ED practice, the influence of others, and patient expectations. Key themes within these domains included patient engagement, provider confidence and experience, ability to identify and manage patient anxiety, time constraints, concussion knowledge gap, influence of health care providers, and patient expectations to get a CT.ConclusionsDespite high‐quality evidence informing use of CT in minor head injury, multiple factors influence the decision to obtain CT in practice. Identifying and disseminating approaches and designing systems that help clinicians establish trust and manage uncertainty within the ED context could optimize CT use in minor head injury.