Adam L Sharp1,2, Ganesh Nagaraj3, Ellen J Rippberger1, Ernest Shen1, Clifford J Swap3, Matthew A Silver3, Taylor McCormick4, David R Vinson5,6, Jerome R Hoffman7. 1. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Los Angeles Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, San Diego Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, San Diego, CA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente Sacramento Medical Center, Sacramento, CA. 6. The Permanente Medical Group and Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, CA. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Adam L Sharp; Brian Z Huang; Tania Tang; Ernest Shen; Edward R Melnick; Arjun K Venkatesh; Michael H Kanter; Michael K Gould Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: H Laetitia Hattingh; Zoe Alexandra Michaleff; Peter Fawzy; Leanne Du; Karlene Willcocks; K Meng Tan; Gerben Keijzers Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Christian A Koziatek; Emma Simon; Leora I Horwitz; Danil V Makarov; Silas W Smith; Simon Jones; Soterios Gyftopoulos; Jordan L Swartz Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Edward R Melnick; Erik P Hess; George Guo; Maggie Breslin; Kevin Lopez; Anthony J Pavlo; Fuad Abujarad; Seth M Powsner; Lori A Post Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Ronald W Gimbel; Ronald G Pirrallo; Steven C Lowe; David W Wright; Lu Zhang; Min-Jae Woo; Paul Fontelo; Fang Liu; Zachary Connor Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Navdeep Singh; Erik Hess; George Guo; Adam Sharp; Brian Huang; Maggie Breslin; Edward Melnick Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Jeffrey J Bazarian; Robert D Welch; Krista Caudle; Craig A Jeffrey; James Y Chen; Raj Chandran; Tamara McCaw; Saul A Datwyler; Hongwei Zhang; Beth McQuiston Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 5.221