STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine whether the use of an emergency medical services (EMS) protocol for selective spine immobilization would result in appropriate immobilization without spinal cord injury associated with nonimmobilization. METHODS: A 4-year prospective study examined EMS and hospital records for patients after the implementation of an EMS protocol for selective spine immobilization. EMS personnel were trained to perform and document a spine injury assessment for out-of-hospital trauma patients with a mechanism of injury judged sufficient to cause a spine injury. The assessment included these clinical criteria: altered mental status, evidence of intoxication, neurologic deficit, suspected extremity fracture, and spine pain or tenderness. The protocol required immobilization for patients with a positive assessment on any of those criteria. Outcome characteristics included the presence or absence of spine injury and spine injury management. RESULTS: The study collected data on 13,483 patients; 126 of the patients were subsequently excluded from the study because of incomplete data, leaving a study sample of 13,357 patients with complete data. Spine injuries were confirmed in the hospital records for 3% (n=415) of patients, including 50 patients with cord injuries and 128 patients with cervical injuries. Sensitivity of the EMS protocol was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 89.4 to 94.6%) resulting in nonimmobilization of 8% of the patients with spine injuries (33 of 415). None of the nonimmobilized patients sustained cord injuries. The specificity was 40% (95% CI 38.9 to 40.5%). CONCLUSION: The use of our selective immobilization protocol resulted in spine immobilization for most patients with spine injury without causing harm in cases in which spine immobilization was withheld.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine whether the use of an emergency medical services (EMS) protocol for selective spine immobilization would result in appropriate immobilization without spinal cord injury associated with nonimmobilization. METHODS: A 4-year prospective study examined EMS and hospital records for patients after the implementation of an EMS protocol for selective spine immobilization. EMS personnel were trained to perform and document a spine injury assessment for out-of-hospital traumapatients with a mechanism of injury judged sufficient to cause a spine injury. The assessment included these clinical criteria: altered mental status, evidence of intoxication, neurologic deficit, suspected extremity fracture, and spine pain or tenderness. The protocol required immobilization for patients with a positive assessment on any of those criteria. Outcome characteristics included the presence or absence of spine injury and spine injury management. RESULTS: The study collected data on 13,483 patients; 126 of the patients were subsequently excluded from the study because of incomplete data, leaving a study sample of 13,357 patients with complete data. Spine injuries were confirmed in the hospital records for 3% (n=415) of patients, including 50 patients with cord injuries and 128 patients with cervical injuries. Sensitivity of the EMS protocol was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 89.4 to 94.6%) resulting in nonimmobilization of 8% of the patients with spine injuries (33 of 415). None of the nonimmobilized patients sustained cord injuries. The specificity was 40% (95% CI 38.9 to 40.5%). CONCLUSION: The use of our selective immobilization protocol resulted in spine immobilization for most patients with spine injury without causing harm in cases in which spine immobilization was withheld.
Authors: Douglas J Casa; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Scott A Anderson; Ronald W Courson; Jonathan F Heck; Carolyn C Jimenez; Brendon P McDermott; Michael G Miller; Rebecca L Stearns; Erik E Swartz; Katie M Walsh Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Philip C Nolte; Davut D Uzun; Shiyao Liao; Matthias Kuch; Paul A Grützner; Matthias Münzberg; Michael Kreinest Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Henry Ahn; Jeffrey Singh; Avery Nathens; Russell D MacDonald; Andrew Travers; John Tallon; Michael G Fehlings; Albert Yee Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Alfredo E Urdaneta; Geoff Stroh; James Teng; Brandy Snowden; Tyler W Barrett; Gregory W Hendey Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Erik E Swartz; Barry P Boden; Ronald W Courson; Laura C Decoster; MaryBeth Horodyski; Susan A Norkus; Robb S Rehberg; Kevin N Waninger Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.860