Computed Tomography Use for Adults With Head Injury: Describing Likely Avoidable Emergency Department Imaging Based on the Canadian CT Head Rule

BACKGROUND Millions of head computed tomography (CT) scans are ordered annually, but the extent of avoidable imaging is poorly defined. OBJECTIVES The objective was to determine the prevalence of likely avoidable CT imaging among adults evaluated for head injury in 14 community emergency departments (EDs) in Southern California. METHODS We conducted an electronic health record (EHR) database and chart review of adult ED trauma encounters receiving a head CT from 2008 to 2013. The primary outcome was discordance with the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) high-risk criteria; the secondary outcome was use of a neurosurgical intervention in the discordant cohort. We queried systemwide EHRs to identify CCHR discordance using criteria identifiable in discrete data fields. Explicit chart review of a subset of discordant CTs provided estimates of misclassification bias and assessed the low-risk cases who actually received an intervention. RESULTS Among 27,240 adult trauma head CTs, EHR data classified 11,432 (42.0%) discordant with CCHR recommendation. Subsequent chart review showed that the designation of discordance based on the EHR was inaccurate in 12.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.6% to 18.8%). Inter-rater reliability for attributing CCHR concordance was 95% (κ = 0.86). Thus, we estimate that 36.8% of trauma head CTs were truly likely avoidable (95% CI = 34.1% to 39.6%). Among the likely avoidable CT group identified by EHR, only 0.1% (n = 13) received a neurosurgical intervention. Chart review showed none of these were actually "missed" by the CCHR, as all 13 were misclassified. CONCLUSION About one-third of head CTs currently performed on adults with head injury may be avoidable by applying the CCHR. Avoidance of CT in such patients is unlikely to miss any important injuries.

[1]  Frederick P Rivara,et al.  Use of Clinical Prediction Rules for Guiding Use of Computed Tomography in Adults With Head Trauma. , 2015, JAMA.

[2]  C. Guse,et al.  Are we underestimating the burden of traumatic brain injury? Surveillance of severe traumatic brain injury using centers for disease control International classification of disease, ninth revision, clinical modification, traumatic brain injury codes. , 2012, Neurosurgery.

[3]  T. Mills,et al.  Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  S. Parangi,et al.  The thyroid incidentaloma: an increasingly frequent consequence of radiologic imaging. , 2005, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[5]  G. Howells,et al.  Intracranial complications of preinjury anticoagulation in trauma patients with head injury. , 2002, The Journal of trauma.

[6]  C. Maimaris,et al.  Application of the Canadian CT head rules in managing minor head injuries in a UK emergency department: implications for the implementation of the NICE guidelines , 2004, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[7]  Amy Berrington de González,et al.  Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries , 2004, The Lancet.

[8]  D. Schriger,et al.  Annals of Emergency Medicine Journal Club. Computed tomography imaging in the emergency department: benefits, risks and risk ratios. , 2011, Annals of emergency medicine.

[9]  K. Kocher,et al.  Understanding the value of emergency care: a framework incorporating stakeholder perspectives. , 2014, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[10]  H. Krumholz,et al.  National trends in use of computed tomography in the emergency department. , 2011, Annals of emergency medicine.

[11]  William R Hendee,et al.  Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. , 2012, Radiology.

[12]  A. Mangram,et al.  The effects of preinjury clopidogrel use on older trauma patients with head injuries. , 2006, American journal of surgery.

[13]  Brian H Rowe,et al.  Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in patients with minor head injury. , 2005, JAMA.

[14]  E. S. Amis,et al.  Applications of justification and optimization in medical imaging: examples of clinical guidance for computed tomography use in emergency medicine. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[15]  A. Sodickson,et al.  Recurrent CT, cumulative radiation exposure, and associated radiation-induced cancer risks from CT of adults. , 2009, Radiology.

[16]  Mel Herbert,et al.  Developing a clinical decision instrument to rule out intracranial injuries in patients with minor head trauma: methodology of the NEXUS II investigation. , 2002, Annals of emergency medicine.

[17]  J. Brophy,et al.  Association between timeliness of reperfusion therapy and clinical outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. , 2010, JAMA.

[18]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  A prospective cluster-randomized trial to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule in emergency departments , 2010, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[19]  K. Wood,et al.  Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock* , 2006, Critical care medicine.

[20]  Abdullah Pandor,et al.  Clinical decision rules for adults with minor head injury: a systematic review. , 2011, The Journal of trauma.

[21]  D. Larson,et al.  Emergency department computed tomography utilization in the United States and Canada. , 2013, Annals of Emergency Medicine.

[22]  L. Moore,et al.  Preinjury warfarin use among elderly patients with closed head injuries in a trauma center. , 2004, The Journal of trauma.

[23]  D. O'Shea,et al.  Recommended evaluation of adrenal incidentalomas is costly, has high false-positive rates and confers a risk of fatal cancer that is similar to the risk of the adrenal lesion becoming malignant; time for a rethink? , 2009, European journal of endocrinology.

[24]  Richard L. Scheaffer,et al.  Elementary Survey Sampling , 1971 .

[25]  Stephen G. Holtzclaw,et al.  Computed tomography scan utilization in emergency departments: a multi-state analysis. , 2011, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[26]  K. P. Kim,et al.  Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study , 2012, The Lancet.

[27]  J. Holmes,et al.  Identification of low-risk patients with traumatic brain injury and intracranial hemorrhage who do not need intensive care unit admission. , 2011, The Journal of trauma.

[28]  R. Alaghehbandan,et al.  Adverse Drug Events in Adult Patients Leading to Emergency Department Visits , 2010, The Annals of pharmacotherapy.

[29]  K. Eva,et al.  Reassessing the methods of medical record review studies in emergency medicine research. , 2005, Annals of emergency medicine.

[30]  Damon C Scales,et al.  Reducing Time-to-Treatment Decreases Mortality of Trauma Patients with Acute Subdural Hematoma , 2011, Annals of surgery.

[31]  George A Wells,et al.  The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury , 2001, The Lancet.

[32]  William Mendenhall,et al.  Elementary Survey Sampling (5th ed.). , 1996 .

[33]  George A Wells,et al.  Performance of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for predicting any traumatic intracranial injury on computed tomography in a United States Level I trauma center. , 2012, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[34]  Stanley Lemeshow,et al.  Sampling of Populations: Methods and Applications , 1991 .

[35]  David J. Brenner,et al.  Radiation exposure from medical imaging: time to regulate? , 2010, JAMA.