International Survey of Emergency Physicians’ Priorities for Clinical Decision Rules
Open Access
- 7 February 2008
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Academic Emergency Medicine
- Vol. 15 (2), 177-182
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00035.x
Abstract
One of the first stages in the development of new clinical decision rules (CDRs) is determination of need. This study examined the clinical priorities of emergency physicians (EPs) working in Australasia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States for the development of future CDRs.The authors administered an e-mail and postal survey to members of the national emergency medicine (EM) associations in Australasia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Results were analyzed via frequency distributions.The total response rate was 54.8% (1,150/2,100). The respondents were primarily male (74%), with a mean age of 42.5 years (SD +/- 8), and a mean of 12 years of experience (SD +/- 7). The top 10 clinical priorities (% selected) were: 1) investigation of febrile child < 36 months (62%); 2) identification of central or serious vertigo (42%); 3) lumbar puncture or admission of febrile child < 3 months (41%); 4) imaging for suspected transient ischemic attack (39%); 5) admission for anterior chest pain (37%); 6) computed tomography (CT) angiography for pulmonary embolus (30%); 7) admission for suicide risk (29%); 8) ultrasound for pain or bleeding in the first trimester of pregnancy (28%); 9) nonspecific weakness in elders (26%); and 10) CT for abdominal pain (25%). Between study countries, there was consistency in identification of clinical problems, but variation in prioritization.This international survey identified the sampled EPs' priorities for the future development of CDRs. The top priority overall was investigation of the febrile child < 36 months. These results will be valuable to researchers for future development of CDRs in EM that are relevant internationally.Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Pediatric Emergency Medicine Comes of AgeAcademic Emergency Medicine, 2008
- The Acceptability of Clinical Decision Rules: Validation of the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Scale (OADRS)Academic Emergency Medicine, 2007
- Impact of clinical decision rules on clinical care of traumatic injuries to the foot and ankle, knee, cervical spine, and headInjury, 2006
- How comfortable are emergency physicians with pediatric patients?The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2004
- The Canadian C-Spine Rule versus the NEXUS Low-Risk Criteria in Patients with TraumaThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2003
- The Canadian C-Spine rule performs better than unstructured physician judgmentAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 2003
- Accuracy of Ottawa ankle rules to exclude fractures of the ankle and mid-foot: systematic reviewBMJ, 2003
- Methodologic Standards for the Development of Clinical Decision Rules in Emergency MedicineAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 1999
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Ottawa Ankle RulesAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 1995
- Clinical Prediction RulesThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1985