Lukas Lambert1, Ondrej Foltan2, Jan Briza2, Alena Lambertova3, Pavel Harsa3, Rohan Banerjee4, Jan Danes4. 1. Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 12808, Prague, Czech Republic. lambert.lukas@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. 3. Department of Psychiatry, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. 4. Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, U Nemocnice 2, 12808, Prague, Czech Republic.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is widely available in most hospitals, usually 24 h a day, which results in an expansion of its indications, sometimes beyond medically justifiable extent. AIM: To evaluate trends in emergency cranial CTs in a general university hospital during the last 15 years. METHODS: We conducted a database search for emergency cranial CTs between January 2000 and December 2015 that were performed in patients after head injury on weekends and bank holidays and between 8 P.M. and 6 A.M. on workdays. The numbers were compared with demographic data, the number of hospital beds, and total number of CT examinations. RESULTS: The annual number of emergency cranial CTs increased 5.5 times from 124 to 679 with a sharp increase since 2013. This trend showed a negative correlation with the number of hospital beds (r = -0.88, p = 0.0001), the proportion of important findings on cranial CT (r = -0.74, p = 0.0010), or the proportion of patients indicated for cranial CT by NICE 2014 criteria (r = -0.90, p < 0.0001) and positive correlation with the proportion of inebriated patients (r = 0.94, p < 0.0001), and their average GCS score (r = 0.92, p < 0.0001). Compared to the number of emergency cranial CTs, the slope of regression lines for all trends was significantly different (p < 0.001) apart from the number of inebriated patients (p = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: The increase in the emergency cranial CTs cannot be entirely justified by their clinical need. We assume that this is the result of an absent support of adherence to the guidelines in the legislation together with a medicolegally unpredictable environment.
BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) is widely available in most hospitals, usually 24 h a day, which results in an expansion of its indications, sometimes beyond medically justifiable extent. AIM: To evaluate trends in emergency cranial CTs in a general university hospital during the last 15 years. METHODS: We conducted a database search for emergency cranial CTs between January 2000 and December 2015 that were performed in patients after head injury on weekends and bank holidays and between 8 P.M. and 6 A.M. on workdays. The numbers were compared with demographic data, the number of hospital beds, and total number of CT examinations. RESULTS: The annual number of emergency cranial CTs increased 5.5 times from 124 to 679 with a sharp increase since 2013. This trend showed a negative correlation with the number of hospital beds (r = -0.88, p = 0.0001), the proportion of important findings on cranial CT (r = -0.74, p = 0.0010), or the proportion of patients indicated for cranial CT by NICE 2014 criteria (r = -0.90, p < 0.0001) and positive correlation with the proportion of inebriated patients (r = 0.94, p < 0.0001), and their average GCS score (r = 0.92, p < 0.0001). Compared to the number of emergency cranial CTs, the slope of regression lines for all trends was significantly different (p < 0.001) apart from the number of inebriated patients (p = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: The increase in the emergency cranial CTs cannot be entirely justified by their clinical need. We assume that this is the result of an absent support of adherence to the guidelines in the legislation together with a medicolegally unpredictable environment.
Authors: Keith E Kocher; William J Meurer; Reza Fazel; Phillip A Scott; Harlan M Krumholz; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Edward R Melnick; Christopher M Szlezak; Suzanne K Bentley; James D Dziura; Simon Kotlyar; Lori A Post Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2012-11
Authors: David M Studdert; Michelle M Mello; William M Sage; Catherine M DesRoches; Jordon Peugh; Kinga Zapert; Troyen A Brennan Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Harald Wolf; Wolfgang Machold; Sophie Frantal; Mathias Kecht; Gholam Pajenda; Johannes Leitgeb; Harald Widhalm; Stefan Hajdu; Kambiz Sarahrudi Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 5.115
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: Ali S Raja; Ivan K Ip; Aaron D Sodickson; Ron M Walls; Steven E Seltzer; Joshua M Kosowsky; Ramin Khorasani Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.959