Update of the CHIP (CT in Head Injury Patients) decision rule for patients with minor head injury based on a multicenter consecutive case series

OBJECTIVE: To update the existing CHIP (CT in Head Injury Patients) decision rule for detection of (intra)cranial findings in adult patients following minor head injury (MHI).METHODS: The study is a prospective multicenter cohort study in the Netherlands. Consecutive MHI patients of 16 years and older were included. Primary outcome was any (intra)cranial traumatic finding on computed tomography (CT). Secondary outcomes were any potential neurosurgical lesion and neurosurgical intervention. The CHIP model was validated and subsequently updated and revised. Diagnostic performance was assessed by calculating the c-statistic.RESULTS: Among 4557 included patients 3742 received a CT (82%). In 383 patients (8.4%) a traumatic finding was present on CT. A potential neurosurgical lesion was found in 73 patients (1.6%) with 26 (0.6%) patients that actually had neurosurgery or died as a result of traumatic brain injury. The original CHIP underestimated the risk of traumatic (intra)cranial findings in low-predicted-risk groups, while in high-predicted-risk groups the risk was overestimated. The c-statistic of the original CHIP model was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69-0.74) and it would have missed two potential neurosurgical lesions and one patient that underwent neurosurgery. The updated model performed similar to the original model regarding traumatic (intra)cranial findings (c-statistic 0.77 95% CI 0.74-0.79, after crossvalidation c-statistic 0.73). The updated CHIP had the same CT rate as the original CHIP (75%) and a similar sensitivity (92 versus 93%) and specificity (both 27%) for any traumatic (intra)cranial finding. However, the updated CHIP would not have missed any (potential) neurosurgical lesions and had a higher sensitivity for (potential) neurosurgical lesions or death as a result of traumatic brain injury (100% versus 96%).CONCLUSIONS: Use of the updated CHIP decision rule is a good alternative to current decision rules for patients with MHI. In contrast to the original CHIP the update identified all patients with (potential) neurosurgical lesions without increasing CT rate.</p

External validation of computed tomography decision rules for minor head injury: Prospective, multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands

Objective To externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury. Design Prospective, multicentre cohort study. Setting Three university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Consecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over who presented with minor head injury at the emergency department with a Glasgow coma scale score of 13-15 between March 2015 and December 2016. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was any intracrania

Herziene richtlijn 'Opvang van patiënten met licht traumatisch hoofd-hersenletsel'

Recently the out-of-date Dutch guideline 'Mild traumatic head/brain injury' dating from 2001 was revised under the supervision of the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO). The revised guideline gives underpinned decision rules for the referral of patients to hospital, carrying out diagnostic imaging investigations, and formulating indications for admission. Mild head-brain injury is no longer an indication for a conventional skull radiograph. Adults and children aged 6 years and older no longer have to be woken regularly if they are allowed home. The guideline can be used in both primary care and on the Emergency Departments of hospitals and is applicable to both adults and children. The guideline does not address the rehabilitation or long-term care of patients with mild traumatic head/brain injury, but it does give advice on reducing the risk of long-term symptoms. Regional implementation of the guideline in primary and secondary care is recommende

Paediatric procedural sedation and analgesia by emergency physicians in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine

OBJECTIVES: Paediatric patients receive less procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department compared with adults, especially in countries where emergency medicine is at an early stage of development. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the adverse events and efficacy of paediatric PSA in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine and to describe which factors aided implementation. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicentre, observational study of paediatric patients undergoing PSA by the first trained emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. A standardized data collection form was used at all participating hospitals to collect data on adverse events, amnesia, pain scores, and procedure completion. A survey was used to interpret which factors had aided PSA implementation. RESULTS: We recorded 351 paediatric PSA. The mean age was 9.5 years (95% confidence interval: 9.1-10.0). Esketamine was most frequently used (42.4%), followed by propofol (34.7%). The adverse event rate was low (3.0%). Amnesia was present in 86.8%. The median pain score was 2 (out of 10) for patients without amnesia. Procedures were successfully completed in 93.9% of the cases. CONCLUSION: Paediatric PSA provided by the first EPs in The Netherlands showed appropriate levels of sedation and analgesia with a high rate of procedure completion and a low rate of adverse events. Our paper suggests that EPs provided with a proper infrastructure of mentorship, training and guidelines can implement effective paediatric PSA

Paediatric procedural sedation and analgesia by emergency physicians in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine

OBJECTIVES:\u3cbr/\u3ePaediatric patients receive less procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department compared with adults, especially in countries where emergency medicine is at an early stage of development. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the adverse events and efficacy of paediatric PSA in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine and to describe which factors aided implementation.\u3cbr/\u3eMETHODS:\u3cbr/\u3eThis is a prospective, multicentre, observational study of paediatric patients undergoing PSA by the first trained emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. A standardized data collection form was used at all participating hospitals to collect data on adverse events, amnesia, pain scores, and procedure completion. A survey was used to interpret which factors had aided PSA implementation.\u3cbr/\u3eRESULTS:\u3cbr/\u3eWe recorded 351 paediatric PSA. The mean age was 9.5 years (95% confidence interval: 9.1-10.0). Esketamine was most frequently used (42.4%), followed by propofol (34.7%). The adverse event rate was low (3.0%). Amnesia was present in 86.8%. The median pain score was 2 (out of 10) for patients without amnesia. Procedures were successfully completed in 93.9% of the cases.\u3cbr/\u3eCONCLUSION:\u3cbr/\u3ePaediatric PSA provided by the first EPs in The Netherlands showed appropriate levels of sedation and analgesia with a high rate of procedure completion and a low rate of adverse events. Our paper suggests that EPs provided with a proper infrastructure of mentorship, training and guidelines can implement effective paediatric PSA. OBJECTIVES:\u3cbr/\u3ePaediatric patients receive less procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department compared with adults, especially in countries where emergency medicine is at an early stage of development. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the adverse events and efficacy of paediatric PSA in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine and to describe which factors aided implementation.\u3cbr/\u3eMETHODS:\u3cbr/\u3eThis is a prospective, multicentre, observational study of paediatric patients undergoing PSA by the first trained emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. A standardized data collection form was used at all participating hospitals to collect data on adverse events, amnesia, pain scores, and procedure completion. A survey was used to interpret which factors had aided PSA implementation.\u3cbr/\u3eRESULTS:\u3cbr/\u3eWe recorded 351 paediatric PSA. The mean age was 9.5 years (95% confidence interval: 9.1-10.0). Esketamine was most frequently used (42.4%), followed by propofol (34.7%). The adverse event rate was low (3.0%). Amnesia was present in 86.8%. The median pain score was 2 (out of 10) for patients without amnesia. Procedures were successfully completed in 93.9% of the cases.\u3cbr/\u3eCONCLUSION:\u3cbr/\u3ePaediatric PSA provided by the first EPs in The Netherlands showed appropriate levels of sedation and analgesia with a high rate of procedure completion and a low rate of adverse events. Our paper suggests that EPs provided with a proper infrastructure of mentorship, training and guidelines can implement effective paediatric PSA

Procedural sedation in the emergency department by Dutch emergency physicians:A prospective multicentre observational study of 1711 adults

\u3cp\u3eObjective: To describe our experience performing ED procedural sedation in a country where emergency medicine (EM) is a relatively new specialty. Methods: This is a prospective observational study of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation by emergency physicians (EPs) or EM residents in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Data were collected on a standardised form, including patient characteristics, sedative and analgesic used, procedural success, adverse events (classified according to World SIVA) and rescue interventions. Results: 1711 adult cases were included from 2006 to 2013. Propofol, midazolam and esketamine (S+ enantiomer of ketamine) were the most used sedatives (63%, 29% and 8%). We had adverse event data on all patients. The overall adverse event rate was 11%, mostly hypoxia or apnoea. There was no difference in adverse event rate between EPs and EM residents. However, there was a significantly higher success rate of the procedure when EPs did the procedural sedation (92% vs 84%). No moderate (unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care) or sentinel SIVA outcomes occurred ( pulmonary aspiration syndrome, death or permanent neurological deficit). Conclusion: Adverse events during procedural sedation occurred in 11% of patients. There were no moderate or sentinel outcomes. All events could be managed by the sedating physician. In a country where EM is a relatively new specialty, procedural sedation appears to be safe when performed by EPs or trained EM residents and has comparable adverse event rates to international studies.\u3c/p\u3

Procedural sedation in the emergency department by Dutch emergency physicians: A prospective multicentre observational study of 1711 adults

Objective: To describe our experience performing ED procedural sedation in a country where emergency medicine (EM) is a relatively new specialty. Methods: This is a prospective observational study of adult patients undergoing procedural sedation by emergency physicians (EPs) or EM residents in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Data were collected on a standardised form, including patient characteristics, sedative and analgesic used, procedural success, adverse events (classified according to World SIVA) and rescue interventions. Results: 1711 adult cases were included from 2006 to 2013. Propofol, midazolam and esketamine (S+ enantiomer of ketamine) were the most used sedatives (63%, 29% and 8%). We had adverse event data on all patients. The overall adverse event rate was 11%, mostly hypoxia or apnoea. There was no difference in adverse event rate between EPs and EM residents. However, there was a significantly higher success rate of the procedure when EPs did the procedural sedation (92% vs 84%). No moderate (unplanned hospital admission or escalation of care) or sentinel SIVA outcomes occurred ( pulmonary aspiration syndrome, death or permanent neurological deficit). Conclusion: Adverse events during procedural sedation occurred in 11% of patients. There were no moderate or sentinel outcomes. All events could be managed by the sedating physician. In a country where EM is a relatively new specialty, procedural sedation appears to be safe when performed by EPs or trained EM residents and has comparable adverse event rates to international studies

Paediatric procedural sedation and analgesia by emergency physicians in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine

OBJECTIVES: Paediatric patients receive less procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department compared with adults, especially in countries where emergency medicine is at an early stage of development. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the adverse events and efficacy of paediatric PSA in a country with a recent establishment of emergency medicine and to describe which factors aided implementation. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicentre, observational study of paediatric patients undergoing PSA by the first trained emergency physicians (EPs) in The Netherlands. A standardized data collection form was used at all participating hospitals to collect data on adverse events, amnesia, pain scores, and procedure completion. A survey was used to interpret which factors had aided PSA implementation. RESULTS: We recorded 351 paediatric PSA. The mean age was 9.5 years (95% confidence interval: 9.1-10.0). Esketamine was most frequently used (42.4%), followed by propofol (34.7%). The adverse event rate was low (3.0%). Amnesia was present in 86.8%. The median pain score was 2 (out of 10) for patients without amnesia. Procedures were successfully completed in 93.9% of the cases. CONCLUSION: Paediatric PSA provided by the first EPs in The Netherlands showed appropriate levels of sedation and analgesia with a high rate of procedure completion and a low rate of adverse events. Our paper suggests that EPs provided with a proper infrastructure of mentorship, training and guidelines can implement effective paediatric PSA

Update of the CHIP (CT in Head Injury Patients) decision rule for patients with minor head injury based on a multicenter consecutive case series

Objective: To update the existing CHIP (CT in Head Injury Patients) decision rule for detection of (intra)cranial findings in adult patients following minor head injury (MHI). Methods: The study is a prospective multicenter cohort study in the Netherlands. Consecutive MHI patients of 16 years and older were included. Primary outcome was any (intra)cranial traumatic finding on computed tomography (CT). Secondary outcomes were any potential neurosurgical lesion and neurosurgical intervention. The CHIP model was validated and subsequently updated and revised. Diagnostic performance was assessed by calculating the c-statistic. Results: Among 4557 included patients 3742 received a CT (82%). In 383 patients (8.4%) a traumatic finding was present on CT. A potential neurosurgical lesion was found in 73 patients (1.6%) with 26 (0.6%) patients that actually had neurosurgery or died as a result of traumatic brain injury. The original CHIP underestimated the risk of traumatic (intra)cranial findings in low-predicted-risk groups, while in high-predicted-risk groups the risk was overestimated. The c-statistic of the original CHIP model was 0.72 (95% CI 0.69–0.74) and it would have missed two potential neurosurgical lesions and one patient that underwent neurosurgery. The updated model performed similar to the original model regarding traumatic (intra)cranial findings (c-statistic 0.77 95% CI 0.74–0.79, after crossvalidation c-statistic 0.73). The updated CHIP had the same CT rate as the original CHIP (75%) and a similar sensitivity (92 versus 93%) and specificity (both 27%) for any traumatic (intra)cranial finding. However, the updated CHIP would not have missed any (potential) neurosurgical lesions and had a higher sensitivity for (potential) neurosurgical lesions or death as a result of traumatic brain injury (100% versus 96%). Conclusions: Use of the updated CHIP decision rule is a good alternative to current decision rules for patients with MHI. In contrast to the original CHIP the update identified all patients with (potential) neurosurgical lesions without increasing CT rate