Have to think on that. I guess my own feeling is that the more data we
collect (even on the 'minimals') - the better.
It's reasonably easy to get head CT's here - mainly because we don't have to
call in a radiology reg to inject dye - downside is we have to read them
ourselves (which is not really a problem for blindingly obvious changes - I
sometimes think they are easier than reading CXR's).
If I scan someone on warfarin, say oh, a couple, for the sake of argument,
at least 4 hours after a HI, and there is nothing there, it stands to reason
that the patient is unlikely to develop a bleed anytime after due to that
injury.
Or does it?
Should I keep all those people with normal scans in who still have some
symptoms? No symptoms? Or those whose baselines are so cognitively impaired
that it's difficult to assess?
Robert Spykerman
Reg, ED, Cork University Hospital
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray McGlone" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Warfarin and minor head injury
> Are you going to scan all patients with a "minimal" head injury i.e. no
loss
> of consciousness and no symptoms? If so does your radiology department
know?
>
> If you are going to scan asymptomatic patients a delay of ?3 hrs seems
> reasonable, but then why keep them in?
>
> Ray McGlone
> Lancaster
>
|