Trauma Abdomen, Trauma Blunt, Trauma Centers, Trauma (Including Fractures)
Conditions
Keywords
Trauma, CT, Hot Report, Radiology, HOT-RODs
Brief summary
Many injured patients receive urgent CT imaging to identify major injury. CT imaging of trauma patients is often time critical and the accurate detection of life-threatening findings on this CT is essential. Often following a scan a radiologist is not immediately available to review the imaging, however other members of the trauma team have access to the imaging and may be in a position to provide a hot report. In this study we aim to demonstrate if an educational intervention with a checklist improves accuracy of the hot report.
Detailed description
This is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate whether a standardised approach, educational package (with checklist) may improve recognition of major life-threatening injuries in the hot reporting of trauma scans. A pilot study with 20 participants allocated to the two groups on 1:1 ratio which will receive the education package, will inform feasibility of the larger study. The larger study will recruit 300 participants, 100 on each group on 1:1:1 ratio, to evaluate the primary objective. Participants will be clinicians who volunteer to participate in an online educational package. Participant data will be collected by the online platform under a unique identifier. Results will then be extracted from the platform and then associated with the demographic data on the trust system. Following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, participants will be allocated into one of three groups, and assigned a participant number. The test data set will consist of cases that have been pseudo anonymised with the key stored on trust systems.
Interventions
OTHEREducation
The three groups will report 2 image banks of 15 CT images each. Image bank A will contain 15 CT images each with a brief history including the mechanism of injury. Image bank B will contain 10 new CT images and 5 CT images contained within image bank A, but with an altered but compatible mechanism of injury. Group 1 will report image bank A, receive the educational intervention and then report image bank B with the checklist. Group 2 will report image bank B, receive the educational intervention and then report image bank A. Group 3 will report image bank A and B without any intervention.
Sponsors
University Hospital Plymouth NHS Trust
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
FACTORIAL
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Masking description
Each Group will not be aware of the intervention or education or content the other Group receives.
Intervention model description
The primary analysis will be comparative between the pickup rate between the first and second imaging set within groups 1 and 2. Group 3 will act a control group to determine the effect of repetition on skill development rather than the education package. Subgroup analysis of clinicians by demographics including trauma experience will be performed.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Medical professionals involved in trauma image review. * This includes clinicians who are emergency department doctors, radiologists and other specialties. * Non-radiologist clinicians will be participating completing the hot reports, radiologists will be evaluating their submissions and assessing their accuracy.
Exclusion criteria
* Unable to review CT imaging due to lack of previous experience or disability that prevents them from doing so. * Under 18 years old. * Not a medical professional or clinician.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Rates of detection and error of a hot CT report. | 1 year | Measure using percentage difference in hot report accuracy rates between those who receive the educational package and those who did not. Participants will submit their answers onto the platform and these will be evaluated by Radiologists familiar with the trauma scans the participants have reviewed. The primary analysis will be comparative between the pickup rate between the first and second imaging set within groups 1 and 2. Group 3 will act a control group to determine the effect of repetition on skill development rather than the education package. |
Countries
United Kingdom
Contacts
Primary ContactPaul Jenkins, BMBS, BSc (Hons), FRCR, EBIR
Outcome results
None listed