--- Doc Holiday <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> --> You seem to be unique there. I am sure that
> someone on this list has
> done/seen this very event in their own departments
> even since you first
> stated you had not, say a couple of days back.
Oh I have seen people discharged after CT. Have done
it myself. That wasn't the point.
>
> If, on the other hand, you find someone (and it
> seems you have) who does all
> the above, gets a negative CT and then still admits
> for observation, ask
> that someone to draw you a graph showing the
> evidence he/she has, with
> length of observation post-normal CT in hours on the
> X axis and on the
> Y-axis some measurement of outcome showing a
> benefit...
>
I asked the questions! Never got a satisfactory
answer. Seemed to be related to very cautious attitude
on the part of the neuro teams. Possibly related to
fear of litigation. As I said before the use of CT
extended to head injuries of very dubious nature. No
real evidence of LOC, no scalp lac, swelling or
bruising. GCS15 on admission and throughout stay! The
sort of patient I would have discharged without any
investigations.
Cheers Fred.
|