How the Implementation of a Battlefield Clinical Practice Guideline Affects Documentation Practice and Informs Future Research Initiatives: Spinal Injuries and Cervical Collars. Issue 7 (24th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Graham, Brock; Johnson, Grant M; Gurney, Jennifer M; Shackelford, Stacy A; Howard, Jeffrey T; Janak, Jud C
• Is Part Of: Military medicine. Volume 185:Issue 7/8(2020)
• Page Start: e1209
• Page End: e1215
• Publication Date: 2020-03-24
• Subjects: Surgery, Military -- Societies, etc; Medicine, Military -- Societies, etc; Medicine, Military -- Periodicals; Surgery, Military -- Periodicals; Medicine, Military; Surgery, Military; Military Medicine -- Periodicals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.98023
• DOI: 10.1093/milmed/usz488
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0026-4075

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: In 2010, the Joint Trauma System published a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for providing care to patients with suspicion of spinal cord injury. The CPG advocated for liberal use of cervical collars and adequate documentation of the practice. This performance improvement project examined C-spine CPG adherence in both the prehospital and military treatment facility (MTF) settings. Understanding challenges in CPG adherence facilitates evaluation of future CPGs and their success at implantation of the clinical guidance. Materials and Methods: The Department of Defense Trauma Registry was used to identify US Military casualties meeting the criteria for cervical collar placement between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2018. Criteria for cervical collar placement were defined as any patient who experienced a mechanism of injury relating to an explosion, fall, or motor-vehicle-related injury. Any patients with an AIS severity score greater than 1 to the head or having any ICD injury codes related to either upper spinal cord or head injury were also considered for inclusion. Adherence of cervical collar placement was defined by documented ICD codes or prehospital documentation of cervical collar placement as captured in the registry. Results: A total of 14, 837 patients were identified for possible cervical collar placement and 3, 317 had verifiable documentation of having a C-collar placed. Documented C-collar placement was higher after the publication of the clinical practice guideline in 2010 (29% vs. 15%, p < 0.0001). CPG publication was associated with cervical collar application (odds ratio: 2.50, 95% CI: 2.29–2.72). Conclusion: Application of cervical collars has increased significantly, since the initial publication of the spine injury CPG. Current gaps include valid and reliable identification of patients warranting specific clinical interventions and documentation of patient care. Currently, lack of documentation is reported as nonadherence, but it remains unknown if these missing clinical data accurately portray nonadherence or adherence with lack of documentation. Future research and resources would benefit and expand the results collected in this paper, and cement the importance of CPG publication and adherence.