4.2 Article

Head CT for Minor Head Injury Presenting to the Emergency Department in the Era of Choosing Wisely

Journal

WESTERN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Volume 18, Issue 5, Pages 821-829

Publisher

WESTJEM
DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2017.6.33685

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The Choosing Wisely campaign currently recommends avoiding computed tomography (CT) of the head in low-risk emergency department (ED) patients with minor head injury, based on validated decision rules. However, the degree of adherence to this guideline in clinical practice is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate adherence to the Choosing Wisely campaign's recommendations regarding head CT imaging of patients with minor head injury in the ED. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult ED patients at a Level I trauma center. Patients aged >= 18 years who presented to the ED with minor head injury were identified via International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Medical record abstraction was conducted to determine the presence of clinical symptoms of the NEXUS II criteria, medical resource use, and head CT findings. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the study sample, and proportions were used to quantify guidelines adherence. Results: A total of 489 subjects met inclusion criteria. ED providers appropriately applied the Choosing Wisely criteria for 75.5% of patients, obtaining head CTs when indicated by the NEXUS II rule (41.5%), and not obtaining head CTs when the NEXUS II criteria were not met (34.0%). However, ED providers obtained non-indicated CTs in 23.1% of patients. Less than 2% of the sample did not receive a head CT when imaging was indicated by NEXUS II. Conclusion: ED providers in our sample had variable adherence to the Choosing Wisely head-CT recommendation, especially for patients who did not meet the NEXUS II criteria.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available