» Articles » PMID: 20732978

A Prospective Cluster-randomized Trial to Implement the Canadian CT Head Rule in Emergency Departments

Abstract

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).

Citing Articles

Mind the guideline gap: emergent CT in patients with epilepsy for trauma rule-out-A retrospective cohort study.

Szabo K, Obertacke U, Sandikci V, Ghanayem S, Alonso A, Rink J Neurol Res Pract. 2025; 7(1):10.

PMID: 39988703 DOI: 10.1186/s42466-025-00370-7.


CJEM debate: clinical decision rules-thinking beyond the algorithm.

Morgenstern J, Radecki R, Westafer L, Niforatos J, Atkinson P CJEM. 2025; 27(3):165-169.

PMID: 39900742 DOI: 10.1007/s43678-025-00870-0.


Effectiveness of implementation strategies for increasing clinicians' use of five validated imaging decision rules for musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review.

Kharel P, Zadro J, Wong G, Rojanabenjawong K, Traeger A, Linklater J BMC Emerg Med. 2024; 24(1):84.

PMID: 38760697 PMC: 11100091. DOI: 10.1186/s12873-024-00996-x.


Derivation of the Falls Decision Rule to exclude intracranial bleeding without head CT in older adults who have fallen.

de Wit K, Mercuri M, Clayton N, Mercier E, Morris J, Jeanmonod R CMAJ. 2023; 195(47):E1614-E1621.

PMID: 38049159 PMC: 10699318. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.230634.


Cutaneous Impact Location Predicts Intracranial Injury Among the Elderly Population with Traumatic Brain Injury.

Sedlak M, Wazir A, Dima A, Gazda J, Morochovic R Open Access Emerg Med. 2023; 15:265-275.

PMID: 37520843 PMC: 10386855. DOI: 10.2147/OAEM.S422785.


References
1.
Stiell I, Clement C, Rowe B, Schull M, Brison R, Cass D . Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in patients with minor head injury. JAMA. 2005; 294(12):1511-8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.294.12.1511. View

2.
McCaig L . National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 1992 emergency department summary. Adv Data. 1994; (245):1-12. View

3.
McGinn T, Guyatt G, Wyer P, Naylor C, Stiell I, Richardson W . Users' guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000; 284(1):79-84. DOI: 10.1001/jama.284.1.79. View

4.
Marshall L, Toole B, Bowers S . The National Traumatic Coma Data Bank. Part 2: Patients who talk and deteriorate: implications for treatment. J Neurosurg. 1983; 59(2):285-8. DOI: 10.3171/jns.1983.59.2.0285. View

5.
Brenner D, Hall E . Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(22):2277-84. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra072149. View