%0 Journal Article
%T Evaluating soft collars in pre-hospital cervical spine immobilisation: A cohort study on neurological outcomes, patient comfort and paramedic perspectives.
%A Bruton L
%A Nichols M
%A Looi S
%A Evens T
%A Bendall JC
%A Davis KJ
%A  
%J Emerg Med Australas
%V 0
%N 0
%D 2024 Jul 24
%M 39049205
%F 2.279
%R 10.1111/1742-6723.14464
%X <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>Cervical spinal immobilisation procedures often include rigid cervical collars which, despite associated complications, may provide less immobilisation than previously thought. The present study reports the incidence of worsening neurological outcomes following soft collar application, and additionally reports patient comfort, compliance with spinal immobilisation, and paramedic perspectives on usage.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>This was an observational cohort study conducted in selected metropolitan and regional areas of NSW Ambulance between 1 May 2022 and 31 March 2023. Soft collars were used exclusively in place of rigid collars. The SPEED (SPinal Emergency Evaluation of Deficits) tool was used to evaluate new or worsening neurological deficits following pre-hospital soft collar application. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported comfort of the device, and paramedic assessment of efficacy.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Overall, 2098 soft collars were applied, of which 74 patients (3.5%) were subsequently found to have a cervical spine injury. Eight patients had a spinal cord injury, of which two experienced a worsening neurological deficit after soft collar application. In both instances, comprehensive case reviews determined that this was unlikely to have been attributable to the soft collar. The majority of patients found the soft collar comfortable, and they were well-tolerated by patients who generally complied with immobility directions. Paramedics found the collar easy to apply, and felt it assisted in minimising patient movement.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Pre-hospital use of soft collars does not appear to increase the risk of significant injury. Patients found these devices relatively comfortable, and clinicians reported overall ease of use with good patient compliance with immobility directives.