Search

Introduction: Historically, prehospital care of trauma patients has included nearly universal use of a cervical collar (C-collar) and long spine board (LSB). Due to recent evidence demonstrating harm in using LSBs, implementation of new spinal motion restriction (SMR) protocols in the prehospital setting should reduce LSB use, even among patients with spinal cord injury. Our goal in this study was to evaluate the rates of and reasons for LSB use in high-risk patients—those with hospital-diagnosed spinal cord injury (SCI)—after statewide implementation of SMR protocols. Methods: Applying data from a state emergency medical services (EMS) registry to a state hospital discharge database, we identified cases in which a participating EMS agency provided care for a patient later diagnosed in the hospital with a SCI. Cases were then retrospectively reviewed to determine the prevalence of both LSB and C-collar use before and after agency adoption of a SMR protocol. We reviewed cases with LSB use after SMR protocol implementation to determine the motivations driving continued LSB use. We used simple descriptive statistics, odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to describe the results. Results: We identified 52 EMS agencies in the state of Arizona with 417,979 encounters. There were 225 patients with SCI, of whom 74 were excluded. The LSBs were used in 52 pre-SMR (81%) and 49 post-SMR (56%) cases. The odds of LSB use after SMR protocol implementation was 70% lower than it had been before implementation (OR 0.297, 95% CI 0.139–0.643; P = 0.002). Use of a C-collar after SMR implementation was not significantly changed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23–1.143; P = 0.10). In the 49 cases of LSB use after agency SMR implementation, the most common reasons for LSB placement were ease of lifting (63%), placement by non-transporting agency (18%), and extrication (16.3%). High suspicion of SCI was determined as the primary or secondary reason for not removing LSB after assessment in 63% of those with LSB placement, followed by multiple transfers required (20%), and critical illness (10%). Conclusion: Implementation of selective spinal motion restriction protocols was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the utilization of long spine boards among prehospital patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many emergency medical services (EMS) agencies have de-emphasized or eliminated the use of long spinal boards (LSB) for patients with possible spinal injury. We sought to determine if implementation of spinal motion restriction (SMR) protocols, which reduce LSB use, was associated with an increase in spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: This retrospective observational study includes EMS encounters from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015 submitted by SMR-adopting ground-based agencies to a state EMS database with hospital discharge data. Encounters were excluded if SMR implementation date was unknown, occurred during a 3-month run-in period, or were duplicates. Study samples include patients with traumatic injury (TI), possible spinal trauma (P-ST), and verified spinal trauma (V-ST) using hospital discharge ICD-9/10 diagnosis codes. The incidence of SCI before and after implementation of SMR was compared using Chi-squared and logistic regression. Results: From 1,005,978 linked encounters, 104,315 unique encounters with traumatic injury and known SMR implementation date were identified with 51,199 cases of P-ST and 5,178 V-ST cases. The incidence of SCI in the pre-SMR and post-SMR interval for each group was: TI, 0.20% vs. 0.22% (p = 0.390); P-ST, 0.40% vs. 0.45% (p = 0.436); and V-ST, 4.04% vs. 4.37% (p = 0.561). Age and injury severity adjusted odds ratio of SCI in the highest risk cohort of patients with V-ST was 1.097 after SMR implementation (95% CI 0.818–1.472). Conclusion: In this limited study, no change in the incidence of SCI was identified following implementation of SMR protocols. Prospective evaluation of this question is necessary to evaluate the safety of SMR protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]