Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T22:20:55.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

P056: The state of the evidence for emergency medical services (EMS) care of blunt spinal trauma: an analysis of appraised research from the Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) Project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2016

A. Carter
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
J. Greene
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
J. Cook
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
J. Goldstein
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
J. Jensen
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Introduction: The Canadian Prehospital Evidence-based Practice (PEP) project is an online, freely accessible, continuously updated EMS evidence repository. The summary of research evidence for EMS interventions used to care for blunt spinal trauma is described. Methods: PubMed was systematically searched. One author reviewed titles and abstracts for relevance. Included studies were scored by trained appraisers on a three-point Level of Evidence (LOE) scale (based on study design and quality) and three-point Direction of Evidence (DOE) scale (supportive, neutral, or opposing results). Second party appraisal was conducted for included studies. Interventions were plotted on a 3x3 table (DOE × LOE) for the spinal injury condition based on appraisal scores. The primary outcome was identified for each study and categorized. Results: Seventy-seven studies were included. Evidence for adult and paediatric blunt spinal trauma interventions was: supportive-high quality (n=1, 7 %), supportive-moderate quality (n=3, 21.4%), supportive-low quality (n=1, 7%), neutral-high quality (n=1, 7%), neutral-moderate quality (n=5, 35.7%), neutral-low quality (n=1, 7%), opposing-high quality (n=0, 0%), opposing-moderate quality (n=0, 0%), opposing-low quality (n=1, 7%). One (7%) intervention had no evidence. Interventions with supportive evidence were: steroids, cervical-spine clearance, scoop stretcher, self-extrication and “leaving helmet in place”. The evidence weakly opposed use of short extrication devices. Leading study primary outcomes were spinal motion, diagnostic accuracy, and pressure/discomfort. Conclusion: EMS blunt spinal trauma interventions are informed by moderate quality supportive and neutral evidence. Future research should focus on high quality studies filling identified evidence gaps using patient-oriented outcomes to best inform EMS care of blunt spinal injury.

Type
Posters Presentations
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2016