BACKGROUND: Strategies to enhance clinicians\' adherence to validated imaging decision rules and increase the appropriateness of imaging remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of various implementation strategies for increasing clinicians\' use of five validated imaging decision rules (Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study and Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule).
METHODS: Systematic review.
METHODS: The inclusion criteria were experimental, quasi-experimental study designs comprising randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials, and single-arm trials (i.e. prospective observational studies) of implementation interventions in any care setting. The search encompassed electronic databases up to March 11, 2024, including MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of studies independently using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was clinicians\' use of decision rules. Secondary outcomes included imaging use (indicated, non-indicated and overall) and knowledge of the rules.
RESULTS: We included 22 studies (5-RCTs, 1-non-RCT and 16-single-arm trials), conducted in emergency care settings in six countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland and France). One RCT suggested that reminders may be effective at increasing clinicians\' use of Ottawa Ankle Rules but may also increase the use of ankle radiography. Two RCTs that combined multiple intervention strategies showed mixed results for ankle imaging and head CT use. One combining educational meetings and materials on Ottawa Ankle Rules reduced ankle injury imaging among ED physicians, while another, with similar efforts plus clinical practice guidelines and reminders for the Canadian CT Head Rule, increased CT imaging for head injuries. For knowledge, one RCT suggested that distributing guidelines had a limited short-term impact but improved clinicians\' long-term knowledge of the Ottawa Ankle Rules.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions such as pop-up reminders, educational meetings, and posters may improve adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, and Canadian CT Head Rule. Reminders may reduce non-indicated imaging for knee and ankle injuries. The uncertain quality of evidence indicates the need for well-conducted RCTs to establish effectiveness of implementation strategies.

UNASSIGNED: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is a frequent presentation in Emergency Department (ED). There are standardised guidelines, the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR), for CT scan in mTBI that rule out patients on either anticoagulant or anti-platelet therapy. All patients with these therapies undergo a CT scan irrespectively of other consideration.
UNASSIGNED: To determine whether standard guidelines could be applied to patients on anticoagulants or anti-platelet drugs.
UNASSIGNED: 1,015 patients with mTBI and Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) of 15 were prospectively recruited, 509 either on anticoagulant or anti-platelet therapy and 506 on neither. All patients on neither therapy underwent CT scan following guidelines. All patients with mTBI on either therapy underwent CT scan irrespective of the guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: Primary endpoint was the incidence of post-traumatic intracranial bleeding in patients either on anticoagulants or anti-platelet drugs and in patients who were not on these therapies. Bayesian statistical analysis with calculation of Confidence Intervals (CI) was then performed.
UNASSIGNED: Sixty scans were positive for bleeding: 59 patients fulfilled the criteria and 1 did not. Amongst patients with haemorrhage, 24 were on either therapy and only one did not meet the guidelines but in this patient the CT scan was performed before 2 h from the mTBI. Patients on either therapy did not have higher bleeding rates than patients on neither. There were higher bleeding rates in patients on anti-platelet therapy who met the guidelines vs. patients who did not. These rates overlapped with patients on neither therapy, meeting CCHR.
UNASSIGNED: The CCHR might be used for mTBI patients on either therapy. Anticoagulants and anti-platelet drugs should not be considered a risk factor for patients with mTBI and a GCS of 15. Multicentric studies are needed to confirm this result.

Bevezetés: A koponya- és agysérüléseket (craniocerebralis traumák) nemzetközileg elfogadott standardok alapján osztályozzuk, gyakoriságuk és megoszlásuk országonként eltérő. Magyarországon 100 000 lakosra évente átlagosan 2000 koponyasérülés jut, s ezeknek legfeljebb a negyede jár kórházi felvétellel. Az elrendelt sürgős CT-vizsgálatok száma az Egyesült Államokban és hazánkban is a duplájára nőtt az elmúlt 20–30 évben. A készült koponya-CT-k közel 90%-a bizonyult negatívnak. Az enyhe fejsérülést vagy agyrázkódást szenvedett betegek rövid ideig tartó eszméletvesztésről, átmeneti fejfájásról, retrograd amnesiáról vagy dezorientációról számolnak be, a GCS (Glasgow-i Coma Skála) szerinti 13–15-ös értékű tudatállapot mellett. Fizikális vizsgálat után ezek a betegek sürgősségi osztályon való megfigyelést követően elbocsáthatók lehetnek, mivel az eddigi gyakorlat alapján az elvégzett koponya-CT-vizsgálat kóros eltéréseket nem igazolt. Célkitűzés: A CT nem hatékony használata jelentősen növeli a betegek felesleges sugárterhelését, valamint az egészségügyi ellátás költségeit is. Ezek mérséklésére többféle, külföldön már jól bevált szabályozási rendszer van érvényben, amelyek azonban hazánkban még nem váltak rutinszerűen alkalmazhatóvá. Saját beteganyagunk adatainak áttekintésével azt vizsgáltuk, hogy szükséges volt-e minden esetben a koponya-CT-vizsgálat. Módszer: Megvizsgáltuk a Békés Vármegyei Központi Kórház Sürgősségi Osztályán jelentkező koponyasérült betegek ellátási gyakorlatát. Eredmények: Retrospektív elemzésünk alapján a Kanadai Koponya CT Szabályt alkalmazva a sürgős koponya-CT-vizsgálatok száma kb. 70%-kal lett volna csökkenthető. Következtetés: A külföldön már alkalmazott standard rendszerek hazai használatával lehetőség nyílna az enyhe fejsérültek ellátási hatékonyságának javítására a magyarországi sürgősségi betegellátó osztályokon is. Orv Hetil. 2024; 165(14): 538–544.

UNASSIGNED: Approximately, one in three computed tomography (CT) scans performed for head injury may be avoidable. We evaluate the efficacy of the Canadian CT head rule (CCHR) on head CT imaging in minor head injury (MHI) and its association of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and structural abnormality.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study from May 2018 to October 2019 in the Department of Emergency Medicine, Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Thiruvalla, Kerala. The CCHR is applied to patients with MHIs (GCS 13-15) after initial stabilization and it is ascertained, if they require a non-contrast CT head and imaging is done. For those who do not require CT head as per the CCHR are excluded from this study. After imaging the patients who have a positive finding on CT head are admitted and followed up if they underwent any neurosurgical intervention, those with no findings in CT head are discharged from the hospital. A total of 203 patients were included during study period.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 203 patients were included in study with mean age of 49.5 years. Approximately, 70% (142) were male. Sensitivity of CCHR for predicting positive CT finding in the present study sample was 68% and specificity was 42.5%.
UNASSIGNED: Canadian CT head rule is a useful tool in the Emergency Department for predicting the requirement of CT in patients with MHI. Canadian CT head rule can reduce the number of CT scans ordered following MHI in ED, thus improving the healthcare costs.
UNASSIGNED: Reddy A, Poonthottathil F, Jonnakuti R, Thomas R. Efficacy of the Canadian CT Head Rule in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Minor Head Injury. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(2):148-151.

BACKGROUND: Several validated decision rules are available for clinicians to guide the appropriate use of imaging for patients with musculoskeletal injuries, including the Canadian CT Head Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) guideline, Ottawa Ankle Rules and Ottawa Knee Rules. However, it is unclear to what extent clinicians are aware of the rules and are using these five rules in practice.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of clinicians that are aware of five imaging decision rules and the proportion that use them in practice.
METHODS: Systematic review.
METHODS: This was a systematic review conducted in accordance with the \'Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses\' (PRISMA) statement. We performed searches in MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and Scopus databases to identify observational and experimental studies with data on the following outcomes among clinicians related to five validated imaging decision rules: awareness, use, attitudes, knowledge, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Where possible, we pooled data using medians to summarise these outcomes.
RESULTS: We included 39 studies. Studies were conducted in 15 countries (e.g. the USA, Canada, the UK, Australasia, New Zealand) and included various clinician types (e.g. emergency physicians, emergency nurses and nurse practitioners). Among the five decision rules, clinicians\' awareness was highest for the Canadian C-Spine Rule (84%, n = 3 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules (18%, n = 2). Clinicians\' use was highest for NEXUS (median percentage ranging from 7 to 77%, n = 4) followed by Canadian C-Spine Rule (56-71%, n = 7 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules which ranged from 18 to 58% (n = 4).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that awareness of the five imaging decision rules is low. Changing clinicians\' attitudes and knowledge towards these decision rules and addressing barriers to their implementation could increase use.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) is one of many established guidelines for assessing the need for computed tomography (CT) imaging in patients with minor head injuries. Adhering to such criteria would promote the appropriate use of CT imaging, lower healthcare expenses, and prevent harmful radiation exposure. There is no current literature assessing the overuse of CT imaging for minor head injuries in the Kingdom of Bahrain. This study aims to evaluate CT overuse in adult patients with minor head trauma.  Methods: The study was conducted at the Bahrain Defense Force Hospital over 12 months from January to December 2021. All adult patients (>14 years) who sustained a minor head injury and were referred to the emergency department for CT brain imaging were included in the study. Patients presenting for other reasons or suffering from moderate to severe head injuries were excluded. CT reports were retrieved for analysis. The CCHR was used as a reference.  Results: A total of 486 CT scans were performed. Loss of consciousness was the most common symptom on presentation (n = 74 cases). Only 12.1% of CT scans reported positive findings. The prevalence of CT overuse was highest in patients aged 21-30 years. Patients presenting with loss of consciousness showed a high overuse of CT imaging, accounting for 20.3% of all cases. Only 77.4% of cases met the CCHR criteria and 22.6% were defined as overuse, with 95% confidence interval (0.189, 0.266).  Conclusion: When referring to the CCHR, CT imaging for a minor head injury in adults was overused in 22.6% of cases. Further research will be required to reveal the underlying reasons for these findings along with interventions to reduce future overuse.

A large number of CT brain (CTB) scans are ordered in the ED for older patients with a confirmed or possible head strike but no ongoing symptoms of a head injury. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the Canadian CT head rule supplemented by the original published minimum inclusion criteria to assist clinician assessment of the need for CTB following minimal trauma fall in patients presenting from residential aged care facilities to a major metropolitan emergency department (ED).
This study was conducted as a pre- and post-intervention retrospective audit. The intervention involved implementation of a decision support tool to help clinicians assess patients presenting to the ED following a fall. The tool integrated the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) in conjunction with a simplified set of inclusion criteria to help clinicians define a minimum threshold for a \"minor head injury\". Outcome data pertaining to CT brain ordering practices and results were compared over symmetrical 3-month time periods pre- and post-intervention in 2 consecutive years.
The study included 233 patients in the pre-intervention arm and 241 in the post-intervention arm. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar in both groups. There was a 20% reduction in the total number of CTB scans ordered following tool implementation, with 134 (57.0%) scans in the pre-intervention group and 90 (37.3%) in the post-intervention group (p <  0.01). The diagnostic yield in the pre- and post-intervention groups was 3.7 and 5.6% respectively (p = 0.52). No variation was observed in medical management between groups, and no patients in either group underwent neurosurgical intervention.
Use of the CCHR supplemented by the original published minimum inclusion criteria appeared to safely reduce the number of CTB scans performed in residential aged care facility residents presenting to an ED after a fall, with no associated adverse outcomes. A larger study across multiple centres is required to determine widespread efficacy and safety of this tool.

The objective of this study was to test the validity of the Canadian CT Head rule (CCHR) in cases of minor traumatic brain injury (TBI) in an Indian emergency department (ED). A secondary objective was to compare of the patterns of neuroradiology references between the emergency physician (EP) and the neurosurgeon.
The study was prospectively conducted between July 2019 and July 2020. Patients satisfying the inclusion criteria were subjected to CCHR and the result was documented. The neurosurgeon was consulted for the final decision. In case of disagreement between the neurosurgeon and the EP, the decision of neuro-radiology was taken by the neurosurgeon.
A total of 101 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. 62 subjects fulfilled the CCHR. Out of 62 subjects who fulfilled the CCHR criteria, 46 (74.1%) were reported to have normal CT scans, while 16 had either haemorrhages (n = 12) or contusions (n = 4). All the subjects who didn\'t fulfil the CCHR (n = 39), were reported to have normal CT scans. The EPs used CCHR in all cases of mild TBI while the neurosurgeons chose to get CT brains in all the subjects based of clinical gestalt. CCHR had an observed sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 45.8%.
The CCHR has 100% sensitivity as a screening tool for patients requiring CT brains in case of TBI though the specificity is found to be rather low (45.8%). EPs show a higher level of awareness and inclination to use CDRs in cases of minor TBI to direct the decision for neuro-radiology, in comparison to neurosurgeons. ED residents reported comfort in mobile application based usage of the rule.

The frequency of head computed tomography (CT) imaging for mild head trauma patients has raised safety and cost concerns. Validated clinical decision rules exist in the published literature and on-line sources to guide medical image ordering but are often not used by emergency department (ED) clinicians. Using simulation, we explored whether the presentation of a clinical decision rule (i.e. Canadian CT Head Rule - CCHR), findings from malpractice cases related to clinicians not ordering CT imaging in mild head trauma cases, and estimated patient out-of-pocket cost might influence clinician brain CT ordering. Understanding what type and how information may influence clinical decision making in the ordering advanced medical imaging is important in shaping the optimal design and implementation of related clinical decision support systems.
Multi-center, double-blinded simulation-based randomized controlled trial. Following standardized clinical vignette presentation, clinicians made an initial imaging decision for the patient. This was followed by additional information on decision support rules, malpractice outcome review, and patient cost; each with opportunity to modify their initial order. The malpractice and cost information differed by assigned group to test the any temporal relationship. The simulation closed with a second vignette and an imaging decision.
One hundred sixteen of the 167 participants (66.9%) initially ordered a brain CT scan. After CCHR presentation, the number of clinicians ordering a CT dropped to 76 (45.8%), representing a 21.1% reduction in CT ordering (P = 0.002). This reduction in CT ordering was maintained, in comparison to initial imaging orders, when presented with malpractice review information (p = 0.002) and patient cost information (p = 0.002). About 57% of clinicians changed their order during study, while 43% never modified their imaging order.
This study suggests that ED clinician brain CT imaging decisions may be influenced by clinical decision support rules, patient out-of-pocket cost information and findings from malpractice case review.
NCT03449862 , February 27, 2018, Retrospectively registered.

BACKGROUND: The use of imaging modalities is crucial in the diagnostic field of critical medicine. However, the ethical and economic use of these techniques has become a major concern especially in resource-poor settings. The Canadian computed tomography Head Rule (CCHR) is being increasingly used all over the world to evaluate the necessity of a Computer-assisted Tomography (CT) scan in patients with suspected head injury.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study is to evaluate the efficacy of CCHR to predict the occurrence of head injury, as evidenced radiologically by a CT Head, at a government tertiary care clinical setting in south India.
METHODS: The design was that of a hospital-based cross-sectional survey conducted at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala, India).
METHODS: The study subjects were patients with suspected head injury evaluated at the Surgical Casualty Department of the study setting. Fifty consecutive patients with suspected head injury were enrolled in the study.
METHODS: The Chi-square test was used to assess the statistical significance of association between the outcome variable and the exposure characteristics. The diagnostic ability of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and CCHR were expressed in terms of sensitivity and specificity by considering CT diagnosed Head injury as the gold standard diagnostic tool.
RESULTS: Clinical manifestations as measured by a GCS score < 13 failed to significantly predict a head injury in the CT scan. However, the same became statistically significant when the CCHR was added to the GCS score as a predictor (P value < 0.001). The sensitivity of the tool in predicting a head injury rose from 23.3 to 96.7%.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggested that the CCHR could act as an excellent decision rule to indicate the need of a CT scan. The need of a decision rule was warranted in the context of the growth of newer diagnostic imaging facilities in India.