The impact of introduction of the Canadian CT – head rule on the use of CT-scan on minor head injury patients at Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Head injury is a common traumatic condition seen in Kenya. Among the head injury patients seen at the Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi, minor head injury patients are the highest proportion of non–fatal trauma patients. Minor head injury is described as witnessed loss on consciousness, definite amnesia or witnessed disorientation in a patient with a GCS score of 13–15 who has suffered a traumatic event. There has been considerable disagreement about the indication for a Computed Axial Tomography Scan of the Head (CT-head) in the large number of patients clinically classified as minor. The Canadian CT Head Rule was derived as a sensitive decision rule on the use of CT with the aim to standardize and improve the management of patients with minor head injury. The rule comprised of five high risk factors and two moderate risk factors(Appendix 1). At the Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi, there are no protocols that guide the decision making by physicians on when to do a CT-head for patients who have suffered a minor head injury. According to a pilot study done, approximately 96% of patients with minor head injury have a CT–head done.\nObjective: To determine the change in proportion of CT-scan done in patients with minor head injury after introduction of the Canadian CT Head Rule Guide at the Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi. Secondary objectives were to determine the proportion of patients with minor head injury and moderate risk factors according to the Canadian CT Head rule for whom CT was ordered, probability of neurosurgical intervention in patients with minor head injury and their outcomes on follow up.\nStudy design: A Before - After study\nMethod: A total of 84 eligible patients diagnosed with minor head injury were recruited at the Accident and Emergency Department. Forty - two patients were assessed and data on high risk factors and moderate risk factors of the CCHR, Glasgow coma scale, age, management plan and the Glasgow outcome score on follow-up collected with data collection form 1 (see appendix 2) in the 'before' group, thereafter the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) was introduced and another forty-two patients were assessed according to data collection form 2 (see appendix 3).\nResults: The proportions of CT scans done in the 'before' and 'after' groups were 95.2% and 21.4% respectively. The difference of 73.8% between the two groups was statistically significant (CI 0.55 to 0.84).The proportion of patients with moderate risk factors in the 'before' group was 90.5%. This group of patients represents the proportion of patients in the 'before' group who did not require a CT scan. None of the patients required neurosurgical intervention. All patients had good recovery on follow up.\nConclusion: On the basis of the results of this study, there was a statistically and clinically significant difference in the number of CT scans done for patients with minor head injury in the 'before' group at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, compared to the 'after' group. This was associated with no need for neurosurgical intervention and good recovery on follow up as depicted by the Glasgow Outcome Score. This implications of this study will guide physicians on improving management practice of minor head injury patients. Other important implications include avoiding timely and costly transfers from resource scarce or distant areas for CT scan. Moreover this approach will present opportunities to roll out standardized patient care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".