Expediting the management of cauda equina syndrome in the emergency department through clinical pathway design.

Introduction: Cauda equina syndrome (CES) is a neurosurgical emergency. Early diagnosis with MRI and subsequent surgical decompression surgery can prevent permanent neurological dysfunction. Charing Cross Hospital (CXH) is a tertiary neurosurgical referral centre where in the emergency department (ED), current practice mandated a neurosurgery review prior to requesting MRI. Hypothesis: It was hypothesised that a new clinical pathway, with better coordination from the ED, radiology and neurosurgical teams could reduce the time of presentation to diagnosis or exclusion of CES. Method: Retrospective case-note analysis of patients presenting with back pain to CXH ED over a 3-month period was performed. The primary outcome was the time interval between the patient's arrival to the ED and the MRI preliminary report. Results: The baseline primary outcome was recorded at 8 hours and 16 min (n=30). A new clinical pathway was designed empowering ED senior decision makers to order MRIs prior to neurosurgical review. Two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were performed, each measured over a 2-month period. The first PDSA cycle was performed after the pathway was initially launched (n=17), while the second PDSA cycle measured the effect of staff education and active promotion of the pathway (n=17). MRI was requested earlier, waiting and reporting time for MRI were reduced. The exclusion or diagnosis of CES was reduced to 5 hours and 54 min in PDSA 1 and 5 hours 17 min in PDSA 2, a 29% and 36% reduction (p=0.048 and p=0.012, respectively). Conclusion: The clinical protocol was a cost-neutral and sustainable intervention that effectively reduced the time taken to diagnose or exclude CES and ED waiting times.

A systematic review of clinical prediction scores for deep vein thrombosis.

Objective Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis remains a challenging problem. Various clinical prediction rules have been developed in order to improve diagnosis and decision making in relation to deep vein thrombosis. The purpose of this review is to summarise the available clinical scores and describe their applicability and limitations. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance using the keywords: clinical score, clinical prediction rule, risk assessment, clinical probability, pretest probability, diagnostic score and medical Subject Heading terms: 'Venous Thromboembolism/diagnosis' OR 'Venous Thrombosis/diagnosis'. Both development and validation studies were eligible for inclusion. Results The search strategy returned a total of 2036 articles, of which 102 articles met a priori criteria for inclusion. Eight different diagnostic scores were identified. The development of these scores differs in respect of the population included (hospital inpatients, hospital outpatients or primary care patients), the exclusion criteria, the inclusion of distal deep vein thrombosis and the use of D-dimer. The reliability and applicability of the scores in the context of specific subgroups (inpatients, cancer patients, elderly patients and those with recurrent deep vein thrombosis) remains controversial. Conclusion Detailed knowledge of the development of the various clinical prediction scores for deep vein thrombosis is essential in understanding the power, generalisability and limitations of these clinical tools.