Michael Stewart wrote:
> It's in the department guidelines where I work. However, the original
> description doesn't mention imaging based solely on mechanism (nor
> x-raying everyone aged over 65 who walks into the department).
Thanks for this - it is intriguing. The poster that OHRI produce
leads the reader to believe differently - I wonder if this is an error
in the poster 'translation' - which would not be good, but is a
different issue. (from and education perspective it is _very_ important
> It also mentions excluding those with clearly minor injuries.
Again, the _poster_ introduces this concept _after_ the mechanism of
injury (or age) has mandated x-ray.
Perhaps I can be criticised for taking a literal reading of the
poster.....but, if any defence is needed, the word 'rule' tends to
prompt the reader to do so.
> As I read that, your ATV rollover patient walking into the department
> would not fall into the guideline unless he/she also had neck pain.
....at risk of repetition, not according to the poster.
Thanks for this great input - good discussion!
> Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen KL, Clement CM, Lesiuk H, De Maio VJ,
> et al. The Canadian Cervical Spine Radiography Rule for alert and
> stable trauma patients. Journal of the American Medical Association
> 2001; 286:1841-1848.
>> Can I re-ask my supplementary question though, please - how many folks
>> are using the Canadian C-spine Rule in the UK? (_and_ thus x-raying just
>> based on the mechanism of injury as is suggested).
Visit the OSCAR Canada Users Society
and learn about a world leading open-source Electronic Medical Record