Cervical spine clearance protocols in Level I, II, and III trauma centers in California.

Abstract

Cervical spine clearance protocols were developed to standardize the clearance of the cervical spine after blunt trauma and prevent secondary neurologic injuries. The degree of incorporation of evidence-based guidelines into protocols at trauma centers in California is unknown. To evaluate the cervical spine clearance protocols in all trauma centers of California. An observational cross-sectional study. Included from Level I, II, III trauma centers in California. The self-reported outcomes of each trauma center's cervical spine clearance protocols were assessed. Level I (n=15), II (n=30), and III (n=11) trauma centers in California were contacted. Each available protocol was reviewed for four scenarios: clearing the asymptomatic patient, the initial imaging modality used in patients not amenable to clinical clearance, and the management strategies for patients with persistent neck pain with a negative computed tomography (CT) scan and those who are obtunded. Results were compared with the 2009 Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) cervical spine clearance guidelines. The response rate was 96%. Sixty-three percent of California's trauma centers (Level I, 93%; Level II, 60%; Level III, 27%) had written cervical spine clearance protocols. For asymptomatic patients, 83% of Level I and 61% of Level II centers used National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study criteria with/without painless range of motion. For those requiring imaging, 67% of Level I and 56% of Level II centers stated a CT scan should be the first line of imaging. For obtunded patients and patients with persistent neck pain and a negative CT scan, more than 90% of Level I and more than 70% of Level II trauma centers incorporated the 2009 EAST recommendations. No institution recommended passive flexion-extension radiographs for the obtunded patient. Written cervical spine clearance protocols exist in 63% of California's trauma centers and only 51% of the centers have protocols that follow current evidence-based guidelines. Standardization and utilization of these protocols should be encouraged to prevent missed injuries and secondary neurologic injuries.