C-Spine rearing its ugly head

thegreypilgrim said:
Ah, you're killing me Melcin!

I'll grant you she's probably not pristine in terms of mental status, but for 83 it's hard to do better I imagine. She was completely alert and oriented to time/place/person/event. She understood what was happening, why she was in urgent care, remembered events prior to fall. Just couldn't say how she fell.

Neuro exam is perfect. No nausea/vomiting. No paresthesias. Nothing of concern.

She ambulates with assistance even in normal circumstances. Family were the ones who brought her there to begin with, meaning she had to get up and walk back in the house, out to the car, sit in the car upright on the bouncy road, get out the car, and get herself back in her wheelchair all without spinal restriction.
Click to expand...

Ambulates extensively afterwards with no new deficits are words that really change things in my mind. I love to see how many pts with no pain, no deficit and ambulating since turn out to have unstable vertebral/ligamentous injury. I bet its not that many. As I say I've had similar pts a not collared and I think its a judgement call so I'm not busting your balls. Its a shame your system doesn't necessarily see it as such.

I share your hatred of c-spining oldies. You can always make arguments about anatomical oddities or the possibility of orthopnea preventing it. As I say I've sat with similar pts and said, look we probably should be putting a collar on your neck, but I believe you're very low risk (explanation of risk and intervention) and let them know they can refuse. I never had anyone chose a collar.

Honestly our hospital hate it when we collar unnecessarily because it puts the burden of clearance on them and they need to find an x-ray bed as well. But if you have to, you have too.

Do you use general, lumbar and occipital padding? It works wonders for comfort. I'll email you a bit of lit search doc on its affects on pressure distribution and discomfort if you like. It does ad some extra movement and complexity depending on what equipment you're using and probably not the best thing for the major trauma pt but I think its good for those oldies you have trouble clearing based solely on age and reliability.
 
I had a similar call....
Elderly female at a local assisted living facility who fell outside. She went outside to see the ducks, and fell when she tried to sit down. The staff then assisted her back into the facility before calling us. Patient denied any spinal tenderness, and no crepitus was noted. She did have a 3cm lump on the left posterior aspect of her head, but the injury was isolated and she denied pain anywhere else.
Patient was alert and oriented and was able to recount the accident with detail. Vitals were within normal limits, and she didn't want to go to the hospital but the nursing staff insisted.
Needless to say, we did not backboard this patient. She was elderly, but full-body immobilization did not seem indicated
 
It may also be worth noting that the US connotation of c-spine restriction is backboard, collar, block, tape, and straps. In other parts of the world (New Zealand, and possibly Australia), c-spine means a collar, and that's about it. I did three calls on my ride for 9 year olds with ruby related head injuries. We put a collar on them, scooped them onto the cot, took the scoop off, and told them to lie still. A folded towel was placed under the head to maintain neutral alignment as well. That was it.

Maybe we need to get away from the all or nothing mentality?
 
daughteroftheking said:
I had a similar call....
Elderly female at a local assisted living facility who fell outside. She went outside to see the ducks, and fell when she tried to sit down. The staff then assisted her back into the facility before calling us. Patient denied any spinal tenderness, and no crepitus was noted. She did have a 3cm lump on the left posterior aspect of her head, but the injury was isolated and she denied pain anywhere else.
Patient was alert and oriented and was able to recount the accident with detail. Vitals were within normal limits, and she didn't want to go to the hospital but the nursing staff insisted. Needless to say, we did not backboard this patient. She was elderly, but full-body immobilization did not seem indicated
Click to expand...

You did not mention what medications the patient was on. Aspirin or Anticoagulants would be a cause of concern for the elderly. The same goes for Diovan as a choice for the patient in the orginal post since the choice to use it may have had something to do with osteoporsis.

Spinal immobilization or limitation of movement should have a choice of methods to fit the patient and not necessary mean a hard board. You still have to take into consideration the patient has sustained a fall or some injury that could still be aggravated by sudden or awkward movements. Climbing into an ambulance or moving from stretcher to stretcher are examples of such movements.
 
I believe she was prescribed aspirin...no osteoporosis though. Thanks for bringing that up, as that should always be factored into the decision.
 
Anticoagulants aren't really a factor in my decision as to c-spine someone or not but I will definitely be pushing much much harder to go to the hospital for a CT.
 
Current PHTLS guidelines advocate taking spinal precautions in the presence of a distracting injury... would you consider her temporal pain to be potentially distracting?
 
OIFXGunner said:
Current PHTLS guidelines advocate taking spinal precautions in the presence of a distracting injury... would you consider her temporal pain to be potentially distracting?
Click to expand...

Its not really in the same ball park as the injuries the NEXUS investigators considered distracting.

(a) a long bone fracture; (b) a visceral injury
requiring surgical consultation; (c) a large laceration, degloving injury, or
crush injury; (d) large burns; or (e) any other injury producing acute functional impairment.
Click to expand...

but note that..

Physicians may also classify any injury as distracting
if it is thought to have the potential to impair the patient’s ability to
appreciate other injuries.
Click to expand...

I've had a few pts that for what ever reason just refuse to focus on my exam because they're worried concerned about their very minor injuries. If they also happened to be ?spinal pts I can see circumstances popping up where they couldn't be considered reliable.

I also once had a young bloke who had been involved in an MVA in which his mother had also died. Not surprisingly he wasn't really able to focus on my exam. I suppose you could consider that a psychological distracting injury.
 
If I could just inquire...

disregarding the question on whether or not to c-spine for a minute...


What next?

People with actual spinal injuries do not just go to the hospital spend a few days and come out right as the rain.

What is the course of an 83 y/o with a spinal cord injury?

Do the elderly have less of a chance of secondary injury from blunt force because of reduced inflammatory ability?

I would just like to put forth that while a protocol says you must do something and you are in a postion that must comply, that doesn't mean when you do something it is the right treatment or even beneficial.

Somebody will now accuse me of being arrogant in the next statement.

Most levels of healthcare providers are taught concepts as right and wrong.

But there are actually very few cases of that in real life.

EMS providers, and I admit my guilt in the past as well, often think that what they do is so obviously right, anyone who doesn't do the same must be stupid or wrong.

I could probably type yet another rant on the foolishness of thinking backboards actually help prevent secondary spinal injury and likely cause it, but instead, I will just finish my lunch and allow it to be pondered on an individual level.
 
Is a good read on the topic.

The lit review on blunt trauma immobilisation in conscious pts on page 10&11 seems a pretty good summary of the topic.

http://secure.collemergencymed.ac.uk/code/document.asp?ID=5718




Vene: I'm not sure I understand your point here. The validity of spinal immobilisation is not in questions here. Its about the application of the standard.

Immobilisation is, for better or worse, a standard of care. Its not even an EMS-ism. We can argue about the literature and how it should inform the standard until the cows come home. Changing standards is another argument. How the standard is applied is whats in questions here.
 
Melclin said:
Is a good read on the topic.

The lit review on blunt trauma immobilisation in conscious pts on page 10&11 seems a pretty good summary of the topic.

http://secure.collemergencymed.ac.uk/code/document.asp?ID=5718




Vene: I'm not sure I understand your point here. The validity of spinal immobilisation is not in questions here. Its about the application of the standard.

Immobilisation is, for better or worse, a standard of care. Its not even an EMS-ism. We can argue about the literature and how it should inform the standard until the cows come home. Changing standards is another argument. How the standard is applied is whats in questions here.
Click to expand...

I was trying to cover both the standard and its application.

There is a question of distracting injury and whether this pt needs to be immobilized.

I think a "distracting injury" must be a clinical decision. Not a list of potentially distracting injuries. Simply too much variation in patients.

Some question arose about applying the standard to this patient as a proper or improper treatment.

My question is, with her likely sequele if there was an actual spinal cord injury in a 8 decade patient, would applying the board if you determined she met a predefined criteria or not applying the board if you decided she didn't meet the criteria make any difference at all?

There is also the question about whether the treatment would help or harm.

The topics are inseperable. The idea of the standard is based on flawed logic.

So the question is really in this case is really "do I make a clinical decision or just follow the flow chart?"
 
Veneficus said:
I think a "distracting injury" must be a clinical decision. Not a list of potentially distracting injuries. Simply too much variation in patients.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%

Some people whine about the smallest things and you can argue they are distracted whereas some can have a wicked "distracting" injury by definition but be totally reliable during the assessment.
 
Veneficus said:
I think a "distracting injury" must be a clinical decision. Not a list of potentially distracting injuries. Simply too much variation in patients.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm sure my post on the NEXUS criteria for distracting injury reflects thats.

My question is, with her likely sequele if there was an actual spinal cord injury in a 8 decade patient, would applying the board if you determined she met a predefined criteria or not applying the board if you decided she didn't meet the criteria make any difference at all?
Click to expand...

An interesting question. Not one that ever gets asked here in discussions about immobilisation. I don't know why. We ask it in regards to other interventions: choppers, intubation aggressive use of pressors/inotropes.

Are there any sites/texts/articles that you would recommend on the topic?

There is also the question about whether the treatment would help or harm.

The topics are inseperable. The idea of the standard is based on flawed logic.

So the question is really in this case is really "do I make a clinical decision or just follow the flow chart?"
Click to expand...

I don't agree. The whole point of those flow charts is to create a decision aid that improves on clinical judgement. No decision tool is without the need for sound and informed clinical judgement it just improves and informs those decisions.

Additionally, not everyone can be experts on all topics. Guidelines are fantastically helpful in offering a summary of the literature seen through the eyes of expert opinion, when you don't, yourself have time, to become similarly well read. Sure its a good idea to scratch the surface a little and do more than just read the conclusions, but realistically we cannot all be experts in everything. Acknowledging that is not to avoid making your own clinical judgements. I'd rather make my own judgement informed by a combination of guidelines and relatively light reading, than I would rely solely on my own understanding of a limited selection of the literature on a given topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Melclin said:
Are there any sites/texts/articles that you would recommend on the topic?.
Click to expand...

Not really, just the experiences of neurologists and neuro surgeons.

Melclin said:
I don't agree. The whole point of those flow charts is to create a decision aid that improves on clinical judgement. No decision tool is without the need for sound and informed clinical judgement it just improves and informs those decisions. .
Click to expand...

I agree that is what they are for.

I don't think that is how they are routinely used.

Melclin said:
Additionally, not everyone can be experts on all topics. Guidelines are fantastically helpful in offering a summary of the literature seen through the eyes of expert opinion, when you don't, yourself have time, to become similarly well read. Sure its a good idea to scratch the surface a little and do more than just read the conclusions, but realistically we cannot all be experts in everything. Acknowledging that is not to avoid making your own clinical judgements. I'd rather make my own judgement informed by a combination of guidelines and relatively light reading, than I would rely solely on my own understanding of a limited selection of the literature on a given topic.
Click to expand...

again I agree this is how it should be, but not how it plays out practically.
 
Veneficus said:
So the question is really in this case is really "do I make a clinical decision or just follow the flow chart?"
Click to expand...

I think a more applicable question is do I have the knowledge and information to make a proper clinical decision here.

Not directed at anyone specifically, but a lot of people seem to get off on not immobilizing, almost in an attempt to seem the most educated or a subconscious "screw you" to all the times they did have to immobilize or to other providers for not being 'up to date'.

Yet it keeps happening that people keep making poor decisions and we keep finding fractures that were not immobilized. Many of these aren't too concerning, because they were so minor...but some have not been.
 
AnthonyM83 said:
I think a more applicable question is do I have the knowledge and information to make a proper clinical decision here.

Not directed at anyone specifically, but a lot of people seem to get off on not immobilizing, almost in an attempt to seem the most educated or a subconscious "screw you" to all the times they did have to immobilize or to other providers for not being 'up to date'.

Yet it keeps happening that people keep making poor decisions and we keep finding fractures that were not immobilized. Many of these aren't too concerning, because they were so minor...but some have not been.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but I think a strong push against immobilizing every patient needs to be implemented to get over the immbolize everyone mentality.

Some people are always going to slip through the cracks in any medical procedure.

It sucks when it is you, but if you have case reports of people whose clinical course was changed by not being immobilized, I would like to take a look if I could?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top