International survey of emergency physicians' awareness and use of the Canadian Cervical-Spine rule and the Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule

Academic Emergency Medicine

Volumn 15, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 1256-1261

  Eagles, Debra ^a   Stiell, Ian G ^a   Clement, Catherine M ^a   Brehaut, Jamie ^a   Taljaard, Monica ^a   Kelly, Anne Maree ^b,d   Mason, Suzanne ^c   Kellermann, Arthur ^b,d   Perry, Jeffrey J ^a  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b WESTERN HEALTH   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^d EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Clinical decision rules

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; CANADA; CERVICAL SPINE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DECISION MAKING; EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN; EMPLOYMENT; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; NORMAL HUMAN; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TEACHING HOSPITAL; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AUSTRALASIA; CANADA; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; CRANIOCEREBRAL TRAUMA; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; SPINAL INJURIES; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 57349120687     PISSN: 10696563     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00265.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. McCraig LF, Nawar EW. National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2004 Emerg Dept Sum. 2006; 372.
2. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, et al. The Canadian Cervical Spine Radiography Rule for alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA. 2001; 286:1841-8.
3. Stiell IG, Clement C, McKnight RD, et al. The Canadian C-spine Rule versus the NEXUS low-risk criteria in patients with trauma. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349:2510-8.
4. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen K, et al. The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet. 2001; 357:1391-6.
5. Stiell IG, Clement C, Rowe BH, et al. Comparison of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria in Patients with Minor Head Injury. JAMA. 2005; 294:1151-518.
6. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? JAMA. 1999; 282:1458-65.
7. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 1998; 317:465-8.
8. Dillman D. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York, NY: Wiley, 2000.
9. Das A, Poole WK, Bada H. A repeated measures approach for simultaneous modeling of multiple neurobehavioural outcomes in newborns exposed to cocaine in utero. Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 159:891-9.
10. Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Zahner GEP, Daskalakis C. Bivariate logistic regression analysis of childhood psychopathology rating using multiple informants. Am J Epidemiol. 1995; 142:1194-203.
11. Zeger SL, Liang KY, Albert PS. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44:1049-60.
12. Brehaut JC, Stiell IG, Graham ID. Will a new clinical decision rule be widely used? The case of the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Acad Emerg Med. 2006; 13:413-20.
13. Asch D, Jedrziewski K, Christakis N. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 10:1129-36.
14. Cummings S, Savitz L, Konrad T. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res. 2001; 35:1347-55.
15. Adams A, Soumerai S, Lomas J, Ross-Degnan D. Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines. Int J Qual Health Care. 1999; 11:187-92.