Original ResearchProspective Performance Assessment of an Out-of-Hospital Protocol for Selective Spine Immobilization Using Clinical Spine Clearance Criteria
Introduction
Spine immobilization as a precaution to prevent worsening of an unstable spine fracture or spinal cord injury has been the standard emergency medical services (EMS) treatment of trauma patients for more than 20 years.1 Historically, the decision to perform spine immobilization has been based on the potential for spine injury as determined by the mechanism of injury.2
Although there is no proven benefit of spine immobilization, there is significant evidence of morbidity caused by the procedure itself. Immobilization has been demonstrated to cause back and head pain, resulting in an increased number of radiographs required to clear the spine in the emergency department (ED).3, 4, 5 Rigid spine immobilization can also cause pressure-related tissue breakdown, restrict respirations, and, if used aggressively, actually cause spinal cord injury.6, 7
ED studies have confirmed the ability of clinical criteria to reliably determine the need for spine radiographs, although the majority of these have addressed only the cervical spine.8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Hoffman et al22 reported that only a small number of patients with cervical spine injury escaped capture using clinical clearance criteria in the ED.22 Although the ED use of clinical spine clearance protocols has been reported,23 the validity of using a similar protocol in the EMS setting has not been fully addressed. Relying on the results of studies from our institution, Michigan's Washtenaw/Livingston Medical Control Authority develop an EMS protocol for selective immobilization.24, 25, 26
This study investigated whether the use of an EMS protocol for selective immobilization resulted in appropriate immobilization without spinal cord injury associated with nonimmobilization.
Section snippets
Study Design
This study prospectively examined outcome data on consecutive trauma patients who were evaluated using the southeastern Michigan EMS spine injury assessment protocol.
In October 1997, the Washtenaw/Livingston Medical Control Authority implemented a spine injury assessment protocol for determining which trauma patients had indication for spine immobilization. All EMS personnel received training in the appropriate use of this protocol. The spine injury assessment consists of 5 clinical criteria:
Results
During the study period, 18,594 trauma patients were transported by our ALS services to hospitals within the EMS system. There were documented spine injury assessments for 13,483 of these trauma patients, making them eligible for enrollment in the study. Among this group, 126 patients were excluded from the study because of missing data, including 75 patients who died before radiographic evaluation, which left 13,357 patients with complete data (Figure 2).
Patients ranged in age from younger
Limitations
There were 75 patients who were excluded from the study because of death before spine evaluation. No radiographs were obtained for these patients, and no autopsy reports were collected. All but 1 of these patients had EMS spine immobilization, making moot speculation that perhaps withheld immobilization and resultant spinal cord injury contributed to the deaths.
Not all spine injury assessments were recorded using the documentation table printed on the EMS patient record as instructed. An
Discussion
Our selective immobilization protocol27 asks EMS providers to evaluate patients for the presence of a mechanism of injury sufficient to cause spine injury and perform a spine injury assessment in these patients. The spine injury assessment consists of an evaluation of these 5 clinical criteria:
- •
altered mental status
- •
evidence of intoxication
- •
a suspected extremity fracture proximal to the wrist or ankle
- •
neurologic deficit
- •
spine pain or tenderness
References (30)
- et al.
Changes in physical examination caused by use of spine immobilization
Prehosp Emerg Care
(2002) - et al.
The effect of spine immobilization on healthy volunteers
Ann Emerg Med
(1994) - et al.
Effect of spine immobilization devices on pulmonary function in the healthy nonsmoking man
Ann Emerg Med
(1988) Cervical radiographic evaluation of alert patients following blunt trauma
Ann Emerg Med
(1984)- et al.
High-yield roentgenographic criteria for cervical spine injuries
Ann Emerg Med
(1987) - et al.
Clinical indications for cervical spine radiographs in the traumatized patient
Am J Surg
(1987) - et al.
Cervical injury in head trauma
J Emerg Med
(1988) - et al.
Rational ordering of cervical spine radiographs following trauma
Ann Emerg Med
(1988) - et al.
Cervical spine injury and radiography in alert, high-risk patients
J Emerg Med
(1990) - et al.
Evaluation of neck discomfort, neck tenderness, and neurological deficits as indicators for radiography in blunt trauma victims
J Emerg Med
(1992)
Low-risk criteria for cervical-spine radiography in blunt trauma: a prospective study
Ann Emerg Med
Can an out-of-hospital cervical spine clearance protocol identify all patients with injuries? an argument for selective immobilization
Ann Emerg Med
Committee on injuries. Fractures and dislocations of the spine
Spinal trauma
Pain associated with immobilization on rigid spine boards
Ann Emerg Med
Cited by (0)
Supervising editor: Donald M. Yealy, MD
Author contributions: RMD and SMF conceived and initiated the study. RMD performed all initial and injury medical record reviews and drafted the manuscript. SMF reviewed all EMS patient records and obtained all patient outcomes and reviewed the data, statistical information, and manuscript. KW was the statistical consultant for the study and reviewed the study design, performed the statistical analysis, and reviewed the manuscript. RMD takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding and Support: This work was generously supported by the St. Joseph Mercy Hospital Emergency Department Research Fund and the Clinical Research Fund.
Presented at the Society of Academic Emergency Annual Meeting, May 2002, St. Louis, MO.
Reprints not available from the authors.