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)More than six million instances of head and neck trauma are seen annually in emergency departments in Canada and the United States.¹ Most are classified as minimal or minor head injury, but in a very small proportion, deterioration occurs and neurosurgical intervention is needed for intracranial hematoma.^2,3 In recent years, North American use of computed tomography (CT) for many conditions in the emergency department, including minor head injury, has increased five-fold.^1,4 Our own Canadian data showed marked variation in the use of CT for similar patients.⁵ Over 90% of CT scans are negative for clinically important brain injury.^6–8 Owing to its high volume of usage, such imaging adds to health care costs. There have also been increasing concerns about radiation-related risk from unnecessary CT scans.^9,10 Additionally, unnecessary use of CT scanning compounds the Canadian problems of overcrowding of emergency departments and inadequate access to advanced imaging for nonemergency outpatients.Clinical decision rules are derived from original research and may be defined as tools for clinical decision-making that incorporate three or more variables from a patient’s history, physical examination or simple tests.^11–13 The Canadian CT Head Rule comprises five high-risk and two medium-risk criteria and was derived by prospectively evaluating 3121 adults with minor head injury (Figure 1) (Appendix 1, available at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/cmaj.091974/DC1).⁶ The resultant decision rule was then prospectively validated in a group of 2707 patients and showed high sensitivity (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI ] 91–100) and reliability.¹⁴ The results of its validation suggested that, in patients presenting to emergency departments with minor head trauma, a rate of usage of CT imaging as low as 62.4% was possible and safe.Open in a separate windowFigure 1The Canadian CT Head Rule, as used in the study. Note: CSF = cerebrospinal fluid, CT = computed tomography, GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale.Unfortunately, most decision rules are never used after derivation because they are not adequately tested in validation or implementation studies.^15–19 We recently successfully implemented a similar rule, the Canadian C-Spine Rule, at multiple Canadian sites.²⁰ Hence, the goal of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of an active strategy to implement the Canadian CT Head Rule at multiple emergency departments. We wanted to test both the impact of the rule on rates of CT imaging and the effectiveness of an inexpensive and easily adopted implementation strategy. In addition, we wanted to further evaluate the accuracy of the rule.