Elsevier

Injury

Volume 37, Issue 12, December 2006, Pages 1157-1165
Injury

Impact of clinical decision rules on clinical care of traumatic injuries to the foot and ankle, knee, cervical spine, and head

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2006.07.028Get rights and content

Summary

Introduction

Traumatic injuries to the ankle/foot, knee, cervical spine, and head are very commonly seen in emergency and accident departments around the world. There has been much interest in the development of clinical decision rules to help guide the investigations of these patients in a standardised and cost-effective manner.

Methods

In this article we reviewed the impact of the Ottawa ankle rules, Ottawa knee rules, Canadian C-spine rule and the Canadian CT head rule.

Results

The studies conducted have confirmed that the use of well developed clinical decision rules results in less radiography, less time spent in the emergency department and does not decrease patient satisfaction or result in misdiagnosis.

Conclusions

Emergency physicians around the world should adopt the use of clinical decision rules for ankle/foot, knee, cervical spine and minor head injuries. With relatively simple implementation strategies, care can be standardized and costs reduced while providing excellent clinical care.

Introduction

Clinicians are faced with a multitude of clinical decisions for traumatic injury for patients seen in emergency departments (ED). These decisions are weighted by several factors including: the desire to provide excellent clinical care, fear of malpractice litigation, and pressures to provide care with less cost to the insurers (government or private). Many decisions to perform investigations are based on personal experience and not evidence-based medicine. There are now several clinical decision rules to assist emergency physicians to determine using evidence based medicine which patients require investigations for some of the most frequent traumatic injuries seen in the ED.

Clinical decision (or prediction) rules attempt to reduce the uncertainty of medical decision making by standardising the collection and interpretation of clinical data. A decision rule is derived from original research and may be defined as a decision making tool that incorporates three or more variables from the history, physical examination, or simple tests.12, 26 These decision rules help clinicians with diagnostic or therapeutic decisions at the bedside. The methodological standards for their development and validation and can be summarized (Fig. 1).

Unfortunately, many clinical decision rules to our knowledge have not been prospectively assessed to determine their accuracy, reliability, clinical sensibility, or potential impact on clinical practice. The validation process is very important because many statistically derived rules or guidelines fail to perform well when tested in a new population.9, 23, 4 The reason for this poor performance may be statistical, i.e., overfitting or instability of the original derived model,5 or may be due to differences in prevalence of disease or differences in how the decision rule is applied.20, 44 Likewise, the process of implementation is important to demonstrate the true effect on patient care and is the ultimate test of a decision rule; transportability can be tested at this stage.13

Clinical decision rules must undergo field trials to test their effectiveness, as the rationale for such rules lies in their ability to alter actual patient care.13, 43 Our research group has previously conducted derivation, validation and implementation studies for the following widely used clinical decision rules: Ottawa ankle rules,28, 29, 30 Ottawa knee rules,31, 32, 33 Canadian C-spine rule34, 35, 37 and the Canadian CT head rule36 (for minor head injuries).

The impact of clinical decision rules may be assessed by multiple approaches. Implementation studies likely provide the most concrete evidence that the rules are reliable and work in the real world. Other methods include surveys of physician practices and opinions. Finally, we outline the current assessment of the impact of four well-known clinical decision rules, which were developed using the accepted methodology for conducting clinical decision rules, relating to traumatic injuries. We review the clinical impact of the Ottawa ankle rule, Ottawa knee rule, Canadian C-spine rule and the Canadian CT head rule for minor head injuries.

Section snippets

Ottawa ankle rule

Ankle injuries are one of the most common problems seen in the emergency department. Most patients routinely underwent radiography prior to the development of the Ottawa ankle rule despite a relatively low fracture rate of less than 15%. Although ankle radiography is a relatively low cost investigation, the annual cost of ankle radiography is well over 500 million dollars for the US and Canadian health care systems.29

The Ottawa ankle rules were prospectively derived (N = 750 patients), refined,

Ottawa knee rule

Traumatic knee injuries account for about 1 million ED visits annually in the USA.16 Approximately 80% of patients underwent radiography prior to the development of knee rules, with over 94% being negative for acute fracture.14

The Ottawa knee rules were also prospectively derived (N = 1054 patients)31 and prospectively validated (N = 1096).32 They incorporate simple historical and physical findings which are well defined to determine if patients require radiography of their knee following a

Canadian C-spine rule

Potential traumatic cervical spine injury is a very frequent problem in emergency departments around the world. In the USA, there are approximately 1 million blunt trauma patients a year with potential cervical spine injury.14 For patients who are alert and oriented and neurologically intact, the risk of spinal injury or acute fracture is less than 1%.21 Despite this low risk most patients undergo cervical spine imaging studies resulting in 98% of the studies being negative for acute injury.8,

Canadian CT head rule

Head injuries are among the most common types of trauma seen in North American emergency departments. An estimated 800,000 cases of head injury are seen annually in US emergency departments.14 Although some of these patients die or suffer serious morbidity requiring months of hospitalisation and rehabilitation, many others are classified as having a “minimal” or “minor” head injury. “Minimal” head injury patients have not suffered loss of consciousness or amnesia and rarely require admission to

Conclusions

Emergency physicians should use the Ottawa ankle rule, Ottawa knee rules, Canadian CT head rule, and Canadian C-spine rules to provide more standardised care, to decrease the chances of misdiagnosis and reduce health care costs. International surveys and implementation studies have confirmed that the rules are effective and can be successfully implemented in a wide spectrum of emergency department settings around the world.

References (44)

  • I.G. Stiell et al.

    Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1999)
  • I.G. Stiell et al.

    A study to develop a clinical decision rule for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1992)
  • I.G. Stiell et al.

    Derivation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries

    Ann Emerg Med

    (1995)
  • I.G. Stiell et al.

    The Canadian CT head rule for patients with minor head injury

    Lancet

    (2001)
  • G. Teasdale et al.

    Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness: a practical scale

    Lancet

    (1974)
  • L. Bachmann et al.

    The accuracy of the Ottawa knee rule to rule out knee fractures

    Ann Intern Med

    (2004)
  • R.M. Centor et al.

    Inability to predict relapse in acute asthma

    N Engl J Med

    (1984)
  • M.E. Charlson et al.

    Why predictive indexes perform less well in validation studies

    Arch Intern Med

    (1987)
  • R.G. Dacey et al.

    Neurosurgical complications after apparently minor head injury: assessment of risk in a series of 610 patients

    J Neurosurg

    (1986)
  • M.A. Fischl et al.

    An index predicting relapse and need for hospitalization in patients with acute bronchial asthma

    N Engl J Med

    (1981)
  • A. Laupacis et al.

    Clinical prediction rules: a review and suggested modifications of methodological standards

    JAMA

    (1997)
  • T.H. Lee

    Evaluating decision aids: the next painful step

    J Gen Intern Med

    (1990)
  • Cited by (45)

    • [Translated article] Use of Ottawa ankle rules in a referral hospital in Peru

      2022, Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia
      Citation Excerpt :

      For this reason, they are considered a neglected public health problem in Peru, according to WHO data.8 Soft tissue injuries of the foot and ankle are more frequent than fractures, with fractures accounting for approximately 15% (13–20%) of all foot and ankle injuries.3,5,6,9–14 It is common practice to order X-rays even when the physician is certain that there is no fracture.

    • Diagnostic validity of physical examination tests for common knee disorders: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis

      2017, Physical Therapy in Sport
      Citation Excerpt :

      The implementation of this tool in clinical practice, namely in emergency departments, has been shown to decrease radiograph use, to lower direct healthcare costs and to diminish time spent by patients in the emergency department, without compromising patients’ safety and quality of care. ( Perry & Stiell, 2006; Stiell & Bennett, 2007). Clinicians can therefore rely on the rule to avoid unnecessary radiographic evaluation in this setting.

    • Emergency department management of transient ischemic attack: A survey of emergency physicians

      2016, Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
      Citation Excerpt :

      Clinical decision rules utilize elements of patient history, examination, or initial testing results to calculate a quantitative estimate of the probability of a clinical outcome.17 Rigorously developed, validated clinical decision rules offer the potential to improve the quality, consistency, and efficiency of health care.18 A clinical decision rule for predicting the short-term risk of stroke after TIA was identified by emergency physicians as among the highest priority conditions for rule development.19

    • Physiotherapy clinical educators' perceptions and experiences of clinical prediction rules

      2015, Physiotherapy (United Kingdom)
      Citation Excerpt :

      Whilst CPRs have been developed that are relevant to physiotherapy practice, there is little evidence to indicate that physiotherapists know about them or use them [7,8]. Moreover, although the impact of CPRs on clinical decision-making in medicine has been investigated [9–11], their impact on decision-making by physiotherapists is largely unknown [12]. The extent to which physiotherapy students are learning about CPRs is similarly unexplored.

    • Evidence for diagnostic imaging guidelines

      2015, Journal of the American College of Radiology
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text