Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction: Individual and institutional disparities in CT imaging rates for patients with head injuries have long been recognized, leading to the development of well-validated clinical decision rules designed to standardize clinical practice. To assess their impact on current practice, we sought to evaluate variation in CT imaging by emergency physicians for patients presenting with head injury across the province of Alberta. Methods: A unique data warehouse merging administrative, clinical, and imaging platforms for 11 Alberta emergency departments (EDs) was created. Unique identifiers were obtained for all emergency physicians who were included in this analysis if they evaluated in excess of ten ED patients presenting with a chief complaint of “head injury”. Patients with high triage acuity (CTAS 1) were excluded, as were patients who were admitted to hospital. Descriptive statistics were employed to describe variation between physicians and sites for a 24 month period from 2013-2015. Results: 311 emergency physicians treating 20,797 patient encounters for head injury were included. Overall a total of 8,245 head injury patients (40%) received one or more CT scans. Physician variation across the 11 sites ranged from 4% -100% of head injury patients receiving a CT. Within sites CT ordering between physicians varied from 9-fold (4% - 36%) at the lowest variation site, to more than 20-fold (4% - 90%) at the highest variation site. After removing the 5% lowest and highest ordering physicians, variation in ordering continued to range from 10% - 72%. No trends were observed across the two years examined. Conclusion: This is the largest study to date examining physician level variation in CT ordering practices for ED head injury patients. We have identified marked persistent practice variation despite the presence of well-validated clinical decision rules and a relatively low risk medicolegal environment. Variable risk tolerance and limited use of validated clinical decision rules are likely contributors making this area an ideal focus for targeted interventions to improve imaging appropriateness and reduce practice variation.
