Prehospital Protocols Reducing Long Spinal Board Use Are Not Associated with a Change in Incidence of Spinal Cord Injury
Name:
SMR_Manuscript-Rev_1_FINAL.pdf
Size:
187.4Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Accepted Manuscript
Author
Castro-Marin, FrancoGaither, Joshua B
Rice, Amber D
N Blust, Robyn
Chikani, Vatsal
Vossbrink, Anne
Bobrow, Bentley J
Affiliation
Univ Arizona, Coll Med, Dept Emergency Med, Arizona Emergency Med Res CtrIssue Date
2019-08-14Keywords
emergency medical serviceslong spinal board
spinal cord injury
spinal immobilization
spinal motion restriction
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
TAYLOR & FRANCIS INCCitation
Franco Castro-Marin, Joshua B. Gaither, Amber D. Rice, Robyn N. Blust, Vatsal Chikani, Anne Vossbrink & Bentley J. Bobrow (2019) Prehospital Protocols Reducing Long Spinal Board Use Are Not Associated with a Change in Incidence of Spinal Cord Injury, Prehospital Emergency Care, DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2019.1645923Journal
PREHOSPITAL EMERGENCY CARERights
Copyright © 2019 Taylor & Francis.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
Introduction: Many emergency medical services (EMS) agencies have de-emphasized or eliminated the use of long spinal boards (LSB) for patients with possible spinal injury. We sought to determine if implementation of spinal motion restriction (SMR) protocols, which reduce LSB use, was associated with an increase in spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: This retrospective observational study includes EMS encounters from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015 submitted by SMR-adopting ground-based agencies to a state EMS database with hospital discharge data. Encounters were excluded if SMR implementation date was unknown, occurred during a 3-month run-in period, or were duplicates. Study samples include patients with traumatic injury (TI), possible spinal trauma (P-ST), and verified spinal trauma (V-ST) using hospital discharge ICD-9/10 diagnosis codes. The incidence of SCI before and after implementation of SMR was compared using Chi-squared and logistic regression. Results: From 1,005,978 linked encounters, 104,315 unique encounters with traumatic injury and known SMR implementation date were identified with 51,199 cases of P-ST and 5,178 V-ST cases. The incidence of SCI in the pre-SMR and post-SMR interval for each group was: TI, 0.20% vs. 0.22% (p = 0.390); P-ST, 0.40% vs. 0.45% (p = 0.436); and V-ST, 4.04% vs. 4.37% (p = 0.561). Age and injury severity adjusted odds ratio of SCI in the highest risk cohort of patients with V-ST was 1.097 after SMR implementation (95% CI 0.818-1.472). Conclusion: In this limited study, no change in the incidence of SCI was identified following implementation of SMR protocols. Prospective evaluation of this question is necessary to evaluate the safety of SMR protocols.Note
12 month embargo; published online: 14 August 2019ISSN
1090-3127PubMed ID
31348691Version
Final accepted manuscriptae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1080/10903127.2019.1645923