Turcotte, Stéphane

Abstract BACKGROUND Head computerized tomography (CT) increases the risk of cancer in children and should be carefully prescribed to paediatric patients with head injury. The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Network (PECARN) validated a rule to identify children at risk of a clinically important traumatic brain injury (TBI) needing a head CT. OBJECTIVES The objective was to evaluate adherence to the PECARN rule as a function of CT overuse (defined as a prescribed CT when not recommended by the rule) and underuse rates (no CT performed when recommended) in two Canadian emergency departments (EDs). DESIGN/METHODS We conducted a retrospective chart review of children under 17 years of age seen in 2016 in a paediatric Level I (site 1) and a general Level II (site 2) trauma center. We reviewed charts to determine the appropriateness of head CT use according to the PECARN rule in a random subset of children presenting with a head trauma. Mandatory inclusion criteria were (1) that the head trauma occurred in the 24 hours prior to arrival to the ED, (2) a GCS over 13 and (3) and at least one sign or symptom of minor TBI. Patients with a special condition that could have influenced the decision to order a head CT were automatically excluded. When a patient did not receive a head CT when recommended by the rule, we reviewed medical records to determine if the patient has returned to the ED after his discharge within the next 30 days. RESULTS 1546 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. For the younger group (< 2), both overuse and underuse rates were below 3%. For the older group, overuse rates were higher in site 2 (9.3% (95%CI:4.8–17%) vs. 1.2% (95%CI:0.2–6.5%) (P=.03)) and there was no difference in underuse rates (22% (95%CI:6.3–55%) vs 39% (95%CI:18–65%) (P=.65)). For children who did not receive a head CT when recommended, none returned to the ED for a related complication. CONCLUSION Overall, even if there may be slightly more overuse of head CTs in the Level II trauma center, results showed an excellent agreement with the PECARN rule when CT was not recommended. However, results also showed a deviation when CT was recommended, where a higher portion of patients than expected did not receive a head CT. Reasons to explain this behaviour will need further exploration.

Abstract Background We have no clear overview of the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in the decision‐making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument ( OPTION ) was designed to assess this. Objective To systematically review studies that used the OPTION instrument to observe the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in decision making across a range of clinical contexts, including different health professions and lengths of consultation. Search strategy We conducted online literature searches in multiple databases (2001–12) and gathered further data through networking. Inclusion criteria (i) OPTION scores as reported outcomes and (ii) health‐care providers and patients as study participants. For analysis, we only included studies using the revised scale. Data extraction Extracted data included: (i) study and participant characteristics and (ii) OPTION outcomes (scores, statistical associations and reported psychometric results). We also assessed the quality of OPTION outcomes reporting. Main results We found 33 eligible studies, 29 of which used the revised scale. Overall, we found low levels of patient‐involving behaviours: in cases where no intervention was used to implement shared decision making ( SDM ), the mean OPTION score was 23 ± 14 (0–100 scale). When assessed, the variables most consistently associated with higher OPTION scores were interventions to implement SDM ( n = 8/9) and duration of consultations ( n = 8/15). Conclusions Whatever the clinical context, few health‐care providers consistently attempt to facilitate patient involvement, and even fewer adjust care to patient preferences. However, both SDM interventions and longer consultations could improve this.