|Authors||Mahoney E, Agarwal S, Li B, Dechert T, Abbensetts J, Glantz A, Sherburne A, Kurian D, Burke P|
|Journal||J Trauma Acute Care Surg Volume: 73 Issue: 3 Pages: 573-8; discussion 578-9|
|Publish Date||2012 Sep|
We hypothesized that trauma patient evaluations using evidence-based treatment guidelines (evidence-based group [EBG]), which include serial examinations and limited computed tomography (CT) scans in an established trauma center, would be associated with equivalent outcomes but with decreased CT scan usage, decreased cost, and less radiation exposure compared with a liberal CT scan approach (conventional group [CONV]).Fifteen evidence-based treatment guidelines were developed using published literature and in collaboration with other institutional departments. These were implemented on July 1, 2010. Prospectively collected data during a 4-month period were compared with a similar period in 2008 when CONV was used.In 2010 (EBG), there were 611 patients compared with 612 in 2008 (CONV). Their average Injury Severity Score was 11.93 versus 8.77 (p < 0.0001), and the total CT scans were 757 and 1194, respectively (p < 0.001). The average APACHE II and hospital length of stay did not significantly vary. No missed or delayed injuries were identified. Estimated CT scan charges were $1,842,534 versus $2,935,024. The average number of scans per patient were 1.2 (EBG) versus 1.9 (CONV). Regarding radiation dosimetry, the estimated average computed tomography dose index (CTDI) per patient were 36.7 versus 53.31 mGy, and the estimated average dose-length product per patient were 889.91 versus 1364.11 mGy·cm.EBG, including serial examinations, provided equivalent diagnostic data to CONV for initial workup but reduced CT scan usage, CT scan charges, and average radiation exposure per patient. This strategy may be beneficial in institutions where serial monitoring can be assiduously provided.Case management study, level IV.
|Full Text||Full text available on PubMed Central|