OBJECTIVES: The derivation and validation studies for the Canadian Cervical-Spine (C-Spine) Rule (CCR) and the Canadian Computed Tomography (CT) Head Rule (CCHR) have been published in major medical journals. The objectives were to determine: 1) physician awareness and use of these rules in Australasia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States and 2) physician characteristics associated with awareness and use. METHODS: A self-administered e-mail and postal survey was sent to members of four national emergency physician (EP) associations using a modified Dillman technique. Results were analyzed using repeated-measures logistic regression models. RESULTS: The response rate was 54.8% (1,150/2,100). Reported awareness of the CCR ranged from 97% (Canada) to 65% (United States); for the CCHR it ranged from 86% (Canada) to 31% (United States). Reported use of the CCR ranged from 73% (Canada) to 30% (United States); for the CCHR, it was 57% (Canada) to 12% (United States). Predictors of awareness were country, type of rule, full-time employment, younger age, and teaching hospital (p < 0.05). Significant differences in use of the CCR by country were observed, but not for the CCHR. Teaching hospitals were more likely to use the CCR than nonteaching hospitals, but less likely to use the CCHR. CONCLUSIONS: This large international study found notable differences among countries with regard to knowledge and use of the CCR and CCHR. Awareness and use of both rules were highest in Canada and lowest in the United States. While younger physicians, those employed full-time, and those working in teaching hospitals were more likely to be aware of a decision rule, age and employment status were not significant predictors of use. A better understanding of factors related to awareness and use of emergency medicine (EM) decision rules will enhance our understanding of knowledge translation and facilitate strategies to enhance dissemination and implementation of future rules.
OBJECTIVES: The derivation and validation studies for the Canadian Cervical-Spine (C-Spine) Rule (CCR) and the Canadian Computed Tomography (CT) Head Rule (CCHR) have been published in major medical journals. The objectives were to determine: 1) physician awareness and use of these rules in Australasia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States and 2) physician characteristics associated with awareness and use. METHODS: A self-administered e-mail and postal survey was sent to members of four national emergency physician (EP) associations using a modified Dillman technique. Results were analyzed using repeated-measures logistic regression models. RESULTS: The response rate was 54.8% (1,150/2,100). Reported awareness of the CCR ranged from 97% (Canada) to 65% (United States); for the CCHR it ranged from 86% (Canada) to 31% (United States). Reported use of the CCR ranged from 73% (Canada) to 30% (United States); for the CCHR, it was 57% (Canada) to 12% (United States). Predictors of awareness were country, type of rule, full-time employment, younger age, and teaching hospital (p < 0.05). Significant differences in use of the CCR by country were observed, but not for the CCHR. Teaching hospitals were more likely to use the CCR than nonteaching hospitals, but less likely to use the CCHR. CONCLUSIONS: This large international study found notable differences among countries with regard to knowledge and use of the CCR and CCHR. Awareness and use of both rules were highest in Canada and lowest in the United States. While younger physicians, those employed full-time, and those working in teaching hospitals were more likely to be aware of a decision rule, age and employment status were not significant predictors of use. A better understanding of factors related to awareness and use of emergency medicine (EM) decision rules will enhance our understanding of knowledge translation and facilitate strategies to enhance dissemination and implementation of future rules.
Authors: Anurag Gupta; Ivan K Ip; Ali S Raja; James E Andruchow; Aaron Sodickson; Ramin Khorasani Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-02-17 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Desmond Wei Tan; Annabelle Mei En Lim; Daniel Yuxuan Ong; Li Lee Peng; Yiong Huak Chan; Irwani Ibrahim; Win Sen Kuan Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Jarone Lee; C Scott Evans; Neil Singh; Jonathan Kirschner; Daniel Runde; David Newman; Dan Wiener; Josh Quaas; Kaushal Shah Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2012-12-19
Authors: Dustin W Ballard; Ridhima Vemula; Uli K Chettipally; Mamata V Kene; Dustin G Mark; Andrew K Elms; James S Lin; Mary E Reed; Jie Huang; Adina S Rauchwerger; David R Vinson Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Liza Victoria S Escobedo; Joseph Habboushe; Haytham Kaafarani; George Velmahos; Kaushal Shah; Jarone Lee Journal: World J Emerg Med Date: 2013