A prospective cluster-randomized trial to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule in emergency departments

Background: The Canadian CT Head Rule was developed to allow physicians to be more selective when ordering computed tomography (CT) imaging for patients with minor head injury. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing this validated decision rule at multiple emergency departments. Methods: We conducted a matched-pair cluster-randomized trial that compared the outcomes of 4531 patients with minor head injury during two 12-month periods (before and after) at hospital emergency departments in Canada, six of which were randomly allocated as intervention sites and six as control sites. At the intervention sites, active strategies, including education, changes to policy and real-time reminders on radiologic requisitions were used to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule. The main outcome measure was referral for CT scan of the head. Results: Baseline characteristics of patients were similar when comparing control to intervention sites. At the intervention sites, the proportion of patients referred for CT imaging increased from the “before” period (62.8%) to the “after” period (76.2%) (difference +13.3%, 95% CI 9.7%–17.0%). At the control sites, the proportion of CT imaging usage also increased, from 67.5% to 74.1% (difference +6.7%, 95% CI 2.6%–10.8%). The change in mean imaging rates from the “before” period to the “after” period for intervention versus control hospitals was not significant (p = 0.16). There were no missed brain injuries or adverse outcomes. Interpretation: Our knowledge–translation-based trial of the Canadian CT Head Rule did not reduce rates of CT imaging in Canadian emergency departments. Future studies should identify strategies to deal with barriers to implementation of this decision rule and explore more effective approaches to knowledge translation. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00993252)

[1]  J. Miller,et al.  Traumatic acute subdural hematoma: major mortality reduction in comatose patients treated within four hours. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  T. Lee,et al.  Evaluating decision aids , 1990, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[3]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. , 2000, JAMA.

[4]  B. Rowe,et al.  Uptake of validated clinical practice guidelines: experience with implementing the Ottawa Ankle Rules. , 2004, The American journal of emergency medicine.

[5]  Brian H Rowe,et al.  Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule: prospective 12 centre cluster randomised trial , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  I. Stiell,et al.  Will a new clinical decision rule be widely used? The case of the Canadian C-spine rule. , 2006, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[7]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations , 1993, The Lancet.

[8]  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.

[9]  T. Ingebrigtsen,et al.  Guideline compliance in management of minimal, mild, and moderate head injury: high frequency of noncompliance among individual physicians despite strong guideline support from clinical leaders. , 2008, The Journal of trauma.

[10]  M K Campbell,et al.  Cluster trials in implementation research: estimation of intracluster correlation coefficients and sample size. , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  A D Oxman,et al.  No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. , 1995, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[12]  C. Gross,et al.  A National Traumatic Coma Data Bank , 2009 .

[13]  I. Stiell,et al.  Implementation of the Ottawa Knee Rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. , 1997, JAMA.

[14]  H. Karamanoukian,et al.  Can patients with minor head injuries be safely discharged home? , 1993, Archives of surgery.

[15]  Diego R Martin,et al.  Health effects of ionising radiation from diagnostic CT , 2006, The Lancet.

[16]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards. , 1997, JAMA.

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

[18]  Jeremy M. Grimshaw,et al.  Changing Provider Behavior: An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2001, Medical care.

[19]  A. Donner,et al.  Analysis of data arising from a stratified design with the cluster as unit of randomization. , 1987, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  Graeme MacLennan,et al.  Attributes of clinical recommendations that influence change in practice following audit and feedback. , 2002, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  McCaig Lf,et al.  National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 emergency department summary. , 1994 .

[22]  I. Stiell,et al.  Implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules. , 1994, JAMA.

[23]  F. Servadei,et al.  Management of low-risk head injuries in an entire area: results of an 18-month survey. , 1993, Surgical neurology.

[24]  I. Stiell,et al.  Methodologic standards for the development of clinical decision rules in emergency medicine. , 1999, Annals of emergency medicine.

[25]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Variation in ED use of computed tomography for patients with minor head injury. , 1997, Annals of emergency medicine.

[26]  D. Brenner,et al.  Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  Brian H Rowe,et al.  The Canadian C-spine rule versus the NEXUS low-risk criteria in patients with trauma. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  A. Evans,et al.  Translating Clinical Research into Clinical Practice: Impact of Using Prediction Rules To Make Decisions , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[29]  C David Naylor,et al.  Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries , 1995, BMJ.

[30]  M. Cabana,et al.  Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. , 1999, JAMA.

[31]  R. Niska,et al.  National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2006 emergency department summary. , 2008, National health statistics reports.

[32]  Andrew D Oxman,et al.  Closing the gap between research and practice : an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings , 2011 .

[33]  B. M. Toole,et al.  The National Traumatic Coma Data Bank. Part 2: Patients who talk and deteriorate: implications for treatment. , 1983, Journal of neurosurgery.

[34]  S G Thompson,et al.  The design and analysis of paired cluster randomized trials: an application of meta-analysis techniques. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.