Clinical Decision Support Intervention and Time to Imaging in Older Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the leading cause of elderly trauma admissions. Previous research identified that each minute delay to TBI diagnosis was associated with a 2% mortality increase, delaying treatment to older patients (age ≥70 years) who do not meet trauma activation criteria. A TBI protocol and clinical decision support intervention (CDS-I) were developed to reduce time to imaging in older patients with head trauma not meeting trauma activation criteria. STUDY DESIGN: An emergency department (ED) head CT protocol and CDS-I were developed and implemented to facilitate rapid imaging of older patients. Patients age ≥ 70 years, with TBI and receiving anticoagulation, met inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes measure was time from ED arrival to head CT imaging comparing before (PRE: January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016) vs after (POST: August 1, 2018 to April 3, 2019) protocol implementation. Negative binomial regression models evaluated the association of intervention on time to imaging. LOWESS (locally weighted scatterplot smoothing) was used to evaluate the association of intervention on mortality over time. RESULTS: The study examined 451 patients (269 PRE and 182 POST). Positive head CTs were seen in 78 (17.3%), and 57 of 78 (73%) patients had a Glasgow Coma Scale > 13. POST-intervention decreased time to head CT from 56 to 27 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] PRE: 32 to 93 to POST:16 to 44, p < 0.001) and POST-intervention patients had reduced hospital length of stay (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.86, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of older patients receiving anticoagulation, but not meeting trauma activation criteria, had positive CT findings. Implementation of a rapid triage protocol with CDS-I reduced time to imaging and may reduce mortality in the highest-risk populations.

Failure of Real-time Passive Notification about Radiation Exposure to Influence Physician Ordering Behavior.

Objectives  To determine whether real-time passive notification of patient radiation exposure via a computerized physician order entry system would alter the number of computed tomography scans ordered by physicians in the Emergency Department (ED) setting. Methods  When a practitioner ordered a computed tomography scan, a passive notification was immediately and prominently displayed via the computerized physician order entry system. The notification stated the following: the amount of estimated radiation in millisieverts (mSv), the equivalent number of single-view chest radiographs, and equivalent days of average environmental background radiation to which a patient during a specific computed tomography scan would be exposed. The primary outcome was changed in the number of computed tomography scans ordered when comparing data collected before and after the addition of the notification. Results  Before the dosimetry notification ("intervention") was instituted, 1,747 computed tomography scans were performed on patients during 11,709 Emergency Department visits (14.9% computed tomography scan rate). After the intervention had been instituted, 1,827 computed tomography scans were performed on patients during 11,582 Emergency Department patient visits (15.8% computed tomography scan rate). No statistically significant difference was found for all chief complaints combined (p = 0.17), or for any individual chief complaint, between the number of computed tomography scans performed on Emergency Department patients before versus after the intervention. Conclusions  Passive real-time notification of patient radiation exposure displayed in a computerized physician order entry system at the time of computed tomography scan ordering in the Emergency Department did not significantly change the number of ordered scans.

Change in intraocular pressure during point-of-care ultrasound.

INTRODUCTION: Point-of-care ocular ultrasound (US) is a valuable tool for the evaluation of traumatic ocular injuries. Conventionally, any maneuver that may increase intraocular pressure (IOP) is relatively contraindicated in the setting of globe rupture. Some authors have cautioned against the use of US in these scenarios because of a theoretical concern that an US examination may cause or exacerbate the extrusion of intraocular contents. This study set out to investigate whether ocular US affects IOP. The secondary objective was to validate the intraocular pressure measurements obtained with the Diaton® as compared with standard applanation techniques (the Tono-Pen®). METHODS: We enrolled a convenience sample of healthy adult volunteers. We obtained the baseline IOP for each patient by using a transpalpebral tonometer. Ocular US was then performed on each subject using a high-frequency linear array transducer, and a second IOP was obtained during the US examination. A third IOP measurement was obtained following the completion of the US examination. To validate transpalpebral measurement, a subset of subjects also underwent traditional transcorneal applanation tonometry prior to the US examination as a baseline measurement. In a subset of 10 patients, we obtained baseline pre-ultrasound IOP measurements with the Diaton® and Tono-Pen®, and then compared them. RESULTS: The study included 40 subjects. IOP values during ocular US examination were slightly greater than baseline (average +1.8mmHg, p=0.01). Post-US examination IOP values were not significantly different than baseline (average -0.15mmHg, p=0.42). In a subset of 10 subjects, IOP values were not significantly different between transpalpebral and transcorneal tonometry (average +0.03mmHg, p=0.07). CONCLUSION: In healthy volunteer subjects, point-of-care ocular US causes a small and transient increase in IOP. We also showed no difference between the Diaton® and Tono-Pen® methods of IOP measurement. Overall, the resulting change in IOP with US transducer placement is considerably less than the mean diurnal variation in healthy subjects, or pressure generated by physical examination, and is therefore unlikely to be clinically significant. However, it is important to take caution when performing ocular ultrasound, since it is unclear what the change in IOP would be in patients with ocular trauma.