Inpatient falls are a patient safety concern. Limited data exist on the utility of head computed tomography (CT) for inpatient falls. The New Orleans Criteria (NOC) is a validated tool to determine the appropriateness of neuroimaging in the emergency department for falls with minor head injury. This study aimed to evaluate whether the NOC could be applied to inpatient falls.
Methods:
This retrospective cohort study assessed 1 year of inpatient falls with injury at 5 inpatient facilities. Records were reviewed for demographic data, fall circumstances, laboratory results, components of the NOC, and head CT results. Cohorts included positive NOC (≥1 NOC finding) and negative NOC. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the NOC alone, NOC plus coagulopathy, and NOC or coagulopathy for acute intracranial process.
Results:
Of 332 inpatient falls with injury, 188 (57%) received a head CT. Of the 250 (75.3%) NOC-positive cases, 159 (63.6%) received a head CT. Of all patients who received a head CT, 7 (2.1%) showed a significant acute intracranial process. The NOC was positive in 6 of the 7 cases (sensitivity 85.7% and specificity 23.8%); the other case had a significant coagulopathy. New Orleans Criteria or coagulopathy had 100% sensitivity and 23.4% specificity.
Conclusions:
Our findings show that use of the NOC to evaluate potential intracranial injury in inpatient falls is limited. Adding criteria to the NOC may improve its test characteristics, with a sensitivity of 100% for the NOC or coagulopathy, suggesting potential clinical utility.
MagotaCSawatariHAndoSIet al.Seasonal ambient changes influence inpatient falls. Age Ageing. 2017;46(3):513–517.
2.
OliverDHealeyFHainesTP. Preventing falls and fall-related injuries in hospitals. Clin Geriatr Med. 2010;26(4):645–692.
3.
BatesDWPruessKSouneyPPlattR. Serious falls in hospitalized patients: correlates and resource utilization. Am J Med. 1995;99(2):137–143.
4.
HillKDVuMWalshW. Falls in the acute hospital setting – impact on resource utilisation. Aust Health Rev. 2007;31(3):471–477.
5.
CumblerEUSimpsonJRRosenthalLDLikoskyDJ. Inpatient falls: defining the problem and identifying possible solutions. Part I: an evidence-based review. Neurohospitalist. 2013;3(3):135–143.
6.
CumblerEUSimpsonJRRosenthalLDLikoskyDJ. Inpatient falls: defining the problem and identifying possible solutions. Part II: application of quality improvement principles to hospital falls. Neurohospitalist. 2013;3(4):203–208.
7.
ToyabeS. Development of a risk assessment tool to predict fall-related severe injuries occurring in a hospital. Glob J Health Sci. 2014;6(5):70–80.
8.
BouidaWMarghliSSouissiSet al.Prediction value of the Canadian CT head rule and the New Orleans criteria for positive head CT scan and acute neurosurgical procedures in minor head trauma: a multicenter external validation study. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(5):521–527.
9.
BoyleASantariusLMaimarisC. Evaluation of the impact of the Canadian CT head rule on British practice. Emerg Med J. 2004;21(4):426–428.
10.
HarnanSEPickeringAPandorAGoodacreSW. Clinical decision rules for adults with minor head injury: a systematic review. J Trauma. 2011;71(1):245–251.
11.
HassanZSmithMLittlewoodSet al.Head injuries: a study evaluating the impact of the NICE head injury guidelines. Emerg Med J. 2005;22(12):845–849.
12.
KavalciCAkselGSaltOet al.Comparison of the Canadian CT head rule and the New Orleans Criteria in patients with minor head injury. World J Emerg Surg. 2014;9(1):31.
13.
Mata-MbembaDMugikuraSNakagawaAet al.Canadian CT head rule and New Orleans Criteria in mild traumatic brain injury: comparison at a tertiary referral hospital in Japan. Springerplus. 2016;5(1):176.
14.
PapaLStiellIGClementCMet al.Performance of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for predicting any traumatic intracranial injury on computed tomography in a United States Level I trauma center. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19(1):2–10.
15.
SmitsMDippelDWde HaanGGet al.External validation of the Canadian CT Head Rule and the New Orleans Criteria for CT scanning in patients with minor head injury. JAMA. 2005;294(12):1519–1525.
16.
SultanHYBoyleAPereiraMAntounNMaimarisC. Application of the Canadian CT Head Rules in managing minor head injuries in a UK emergency department: implications for the implementation of the NICE guidelines. Emerg Med J. 2004;21(4):420–425.
17.
StiellIGWellsGAVandemheenKet al.The Canadian CT Head Rule for patients with minor head injury. Lancet. 2001;357(9266):1391–1396.
18.
YangXFMengYYWenLWangH. Criteria for performing cranial computed tomography for Chinese patients with mild traumatic brain injury: Canadian computed tomography head rule or New Orleans Criteria?J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(6):1594–1597.
19.
ZylukA. Indications for CT scanning in minor head injuries: a review. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2015;49(1):52–57.
20.
BorczukP. Predictors of intracranial injury in patients with mild head trauma. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;25(6):731–736.
21.
ChariSRSmithSMudgeAet al.Feasibility of a stepped wedge cluster RCT and concurrent observational sub-study to evaluate the effects of modified ward night lighting on inpatient fall rates and sleep quality: a protocol for a pilot trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2(1):1.
22.
DavisTIngsA; National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Head injury: triage, assessment, investigation and early management of head injury in children, young people and adults (NICE Guideline CG 176). Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2015;100(2):97–100.
23.
EasterJSHaukoosJSMeehanWPNovackVEdlowJA. Will neuroimaging reveal a severe intracranial injury in this adult with minor head trauma? The rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA. 2015;314(24):2672–2681.
24.
HaydelMJPrestonCAMillsTJLuberSBlaudeauEDeBlieuxPM. Indications for computed tomography in patients with minor head injury. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(2):100–105.
25.
HolmesMWGoodacreSStevensonMDPandorAPickeringA. The cost-effectiveness of diagnostic management strategies for adults with minor head injury. Injury.2012;43(9):1423–1431.
26.
PandorAGoodacreSHarnanSet al.Diagnostic management strategies for adults and children with minor head injury: a systematic review and an economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(27):1–202.
27.
ParmaCCarneyDGrimRBellTShoffKAhujaV. Unnecessary head computed tomography scans: a level 1 trauma teaching experience. Am Surg. 2014;80(7):664–668.
28.
PerryJJStiellIG. Impact of clinical decision rules on clinical care of traumatic injuries to the foot and ankle, knee, cervical spine, and head. Injury. 2006;37(12):1157–1165.
29.
PrasadGL. Minor head injuries in infants: recommendations for computed tomography imaging. World Neurosurg. 2017;103:942–943.
30.
RoYSShinSDHolmesJFet al.Comparison of clinical performance of cranial computed tomography rules in patients with minor head injury: a multicenter prospective study. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18(6):597–604.
31.
SabooriMAhmadiJFarajzadeganZ. Indications for brain CT scan in patients with minor head injury. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2007;109(5):399–405.
32.
SadeghRKarimialavijehEShiraniFPayandemehrPBahramimotlaghHRamezaniM. Head CT scan in Iranian minor head injury patients: evaluating current decision rules. Emerg Radiol. 2016;23(1):9–16.
33.
SandHOwenMAminA. CMS’ hospital-acquired conditions for the neurohospitalist. Neurohospitalist. 2012;2(1):18–27.
34.
FieldsJAlturkistaniTKumarNet al.Prevalence and cost of imaging in inpatient falls: the rising cost of falling. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;7:281–286.
