A comparative analysis of ENP’s and SHO’s in the application of the Ottawa ankle rules

This study investigates the comparative effectiveness of Senior House Officers (SHOs) and Emergency Nurse Practitioners (ENPs) in the application of the Ottawa ankle rules, in a large inner city Emergency Department in the United Kingdom (UK). Sixty patients with ankle injuries were randomly included in this study which took place in the minor injuries unit of the ED over a 12 month period.Data were obtained retrospectively from the patients records relating to six individual aspects of the Ottawa ankle rules. Sixty patients were selected and divided equally between the ENPs and SHOs.The results show a variation between the ENPs and SHOs in application of individual criteria of the Ottawa ankle rules. ENPs more commonly documented bony tenderness to lateral and/or medial malleoli than the SHOs. However, the SHOs documentation of their diagnostic testing was superior with the ENPs failing to document what X-rays 17 patients received. The study demonstrates a statistically significant difference between the two groups of health practitioners. In all but one of the five subquestions of the Ottawa ankle rules there was a statistical significance of 0.053 or less. This clearly shows a difference in the documentation of the Ottawa ankle rules by the health practitioners questioning whether appropriate care is given.Both groups were poor at documenting negative findings and neither consistently documented their application of the Ottawa ankle rules either in part or its entirety.     

Nurse practitioners and the Ottawa Ankle Rules: comparisons with medical staff in requesting X-rays for ankle injured patients

This paper reports on part of a study of 354 consecutive attendances to an Accident and Emergency (A&E) department by patients with ankle injuries. The aim of this study was to examine the percentage of X-ray photographs requested by nurse practitioners compared to those requested by medical practitioners. The study took place in an A&E department where nurse practitioners have the authority to request X-rays photographs for ankle injuries, either at triage assessment or at the subsequent treatment stage. Nurse practitioners applied the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) in 187 patients. The results show that nurse practitioners requested X-rays for 61.5% of patients assessed using the OAR. This is compared with 80.4% for patients assessed by medical practitioners. The difference is highly significant. Detection rates show that fractures were identified in 29.6% of patients sent for X-ray by nurse practitioners compared with 22.8% in patients seen by medical practitioners, although this difference is not significant. Although nurse practitioners applied the OAR appropriately in all 187 cases, four patients who were assessed by nurse practitioners and judged not to need an X-ray photograph were subsequently found to have a fracture.     

Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in children.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the Ottawa ankle rules can be used to accurately predict which children with ankle and midfoot injuries need radiography. METHODS: Prospective study with historical control group of all children aged 1-15 years presenting to Sheffield Children's Hospital accident and emergency department with blunt ankle and/or midfoot injuries during two five month periods before and after implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules. RESULTS: In the study group 432 out of 761 (56.76%) patients received radiography compared with 500 out of 782 (63.93%) in the control group. This was a statistically significant reduction in radiography rate of 7.2% (95% confidence interval 2.3% to 12.1%, p <0.01). The sensitivity of the Ottawa ankle rules was 98.3% and the specificity 46.9%. There was no increase in the number of missed fractures (one in each group). CONCLUSION: The Ottawa ankle rules can be applied in children to determine the need for radiography in ankle and midfoot injuries. Their implementation leads to a reduction in the radiography rate without leading to an increase in the number of missed fractures.     

Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in children.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the Ottawa ankle rules can be used to accurately predict which children with ankle and midfoot injuries need radiography. METHODS: Prospective study with historical control group of all children aged 1-15 years presenting to Sheffield Children's Hospital accident and emergency department with blunt ankle and/or midfoot injuries during two five month periods before and after implementation of the Ottawa ankle rules. RESULTS: In the study group 432 out of 761 (56.76%) patients received radiography compared with 500 out of 782 (63.93%) in the control group. This was a statistically significant reduction in radiography rate of 7.2% (95% confidence interval 2.3% to 12.1%, p <0.01). The sensitivity of the Ottawa ankle rules was 98.3% and the specificity 46.9%. There was no increase in the number of missed fractures (one in each group). CONCLUSION: The Ottawa ankle rules can be applied in children to determine the need for radiography in ankle and midfoot injuries. Their implementation leads to a reduction in the radiography rate without leading to an increase in the number of missed fractures.     

Implementation of the Ottawa Ankle Rules by nurses working in an accident and emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether accident and emergency (A&E) nurses using the Ottawa Ankle Rules could detect all ankle fractures. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: A&E department of a university teaching hospital. SUBJECTS: All patients who presented with ankle injuries who were initially assessed by a nurse taught the Ottawa Ankle Rules. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) The numbers of patients referred by the nurse for ankle radiography; (2) of these, the number with ankle fractures; (3) of those not sent for radiography initially by the nurse, the number who subsequently had x rays (ordered by the doctor) and had a fracture; (4) of those having no x rays, the number who reattended later. RESULTS: 324 patients were eligible; 238 had x rays at the request of the nurse (73%); 48 of these (20%) were diagnosed as having a fracture. Of those 86 patients not sent for radiography by the nurse, 19 subsequently had x ray examinations at the request of a doctor and no fracture was detected. Of the 67 not sent for radiography, none returned within the subsequent eight weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses can apply the Ottawa Ankle Rules safely without missing acute fractures; that is, of those who were not sent for radiography by nurses, none subsequently reattended the A&E department or the trauma service of the Bristol Royal Infirmary during the following two months.     

A case-control study of the transit times through an accident and emergency department of ankle injured patients assessed using the Ottawa Ankle Rules

This paper reports part of a larger study of 354 consecutive attendances to an Accident and Emergency department by patients with ankle injuries. One hundred and ninety-nine patients met the criteria for inclusion in this study. The case study group (n =79) were those patients assessed by a nurse practitioner who had been trained in, and had authority to use of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR) and were referred for radiographs from triage assessment. The control group (initially 120) consisted of those patients who were assessed by nurses who were not trained to be nurse practitioners and were not empowered to use the OAR but were sent for radiographs when assessed at the treatment stage. Sixteen patients were excluded from the study due to missing time data, reducing the control group to 104 patients. Previous studies have suggested that reductions in transit times through the department can be achieved by empowering nurses to request radiographs at the time of initial assessment, although these studies did not look specifically at the application of the OAR. Significant reductions in transit time are demonstrated for those patients who are required to have an X-ray to confirm a diagnosis if this is requested at the time of the triage assessment by nurse practitioners.     

The impact of implementing the Ottawa ankle rules on ankle radiography requests in A&E

This audit was set up to quantify the effect of implementing the Ottawa ankle rules in a district general hospital that relies on both medical and nursing radiography requests. Data were collected prospectively on 207 patients who presented with an acute ankle injury between August 2001 and February 2002. The department's activity was recorded before and after a period of teaching on the Ottawa ankle rules. Before teaching, 71% of patients with an acute ankle injury were sent for radiography; teaching reduced this figure to 56% (p < 0.05). Auditing the activity of our department enabled us to observe a significant decrease in the number of patients sent for ankle radiography following acute ankle injury. This correlates well with research in other settings. The difficulties of rationalising radiology investigations are discussed.     

A pooled analysis of the Ottawa ankle rules used on adults in the ED

A pooled analysis was conducted of the seven studies on the clinical diagnostic effectiveness of the Ottawa ankle rules when used with adult patients in the emergency department (ED). The seven studies, conducted in university and community hospital EDs, had examined the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the Ottawa ankle rules. ED physicians applied the Ottawa ankle rules with adult patients who had blunt ankle injuries. The gold standard was radiography. The combined sensitivity for the seven studies was 97% or higher for ankle/foot, original/refined Ottawa ankle rules and negative predictive value was greater than 99%. These results support the effectiveness of the Ottawa ankle rules for ruling out a fractured ankle or foot. Specificity was lower, ranging from 31% to 63%; positive predictive value was <20%. Thus, the Ottawa ankle rules should not be used for ruling in a fractured ankle or foot. This pooled analysis shows the Ottawa ankle rules to be effective as clinical practice guidelines for acute ankle and foot injuries in the adult ED patient. Patients with negative results when the rules are used are highly unlikely to have a fractured ankle or foot, but the diagnosis for positive patients is much less certain, suggesting the need for radiography.     

Prospective survey to verify the Ottawa ankle rules.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the Ottawa ankle rules are valid in the setting of an urban teaching hospital in the UK. DESIGN: A prospective survey. SETTING: Accident and emergency department, Western Infirmary, Glasgow from 1 April 1995 to 31 August 1995. SUBJECTS: 800 patients with an acute ankle injury. RESULTS: 800 patients were used for analysis of which 584 (73%) were radiographed; 70 (12%) had fractures, 63 (10.8%) of which were significant. Four of these patients with fractures fulfilled none of the Ottawa ankle rules criteria for plain radiography. CONCLUSION: Application of the Ottawa ankle rules to this group of patients would have produced a sensitivity of 93.6%. Although useful, decision rules should be used with care and not replace clinical judgment and experience.     

Prospective survey to verify the Ottawa ankle rules.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the Ottawa ankle rules are valid in the setting of an urban teaching hospital in the UK. DESIGN: A prospective survey. SETTING: Accident and emergency department, Western Infirmary, Glasgow from 1 April 1995 to 31 August 1995. SUBJECTS: 800 patients with an acute ankle injury. RESULTS: 800 patients were used for analysis of which 584 (73%) were radiographed; 70 (12%) had fractures, 63 (10.8%) of which were significant. Four of these patients with fractures fulfilled none of the Ottawa ankle rules criteria for plain radiography. CONCLUSION: Application of the Ottawa ankle rules to this group of patients would have produced a sensitivity of 93.6%. Although useful, decision rules should be used with care and not replace clinical judgment and experience.     

Ankle Radiograph Utilization after Learning a Decision Rule: A 12-month Follow-up

Objective: To test whether the reduction in ankle radiograph ordering was sustained during a 12-month period after a formal trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules
Methods: A before-after clinical trial of ankle radiograph ordering practice was performed in a university-based ED. All 1,884 (947 "during intervention," 937 "postintervention") adults seen with acute ankle injuries during 2 12-month trial periods were evaluated. The behavioral intervention was the teaching of the Ottawa ankle rules and feedback of compliance with the rules during the intervention period. No further education about the ankle rules or feedback regarding compliance occurred during the postintervention year. Physicians were unaware of any postintervention surveillance. The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible patients referred for an ankle radiograph during the intervention and postintervention periods.
Results: During the intervention period (January 1-December 31, 1993), the proportion of patients who received an ankle radiograph [609 x-rayed of 947 patients seen (64.3%; 95% Cl 61.2–67.4%)] did not differ from the proportion who received an x-ray in the postintervention period (January 1-December 31, 1994) [583 x-rayed of 937 patients seen (62.2%; 95% Cl 59.1–65.3%), p = 0.65, power > 0.80 to detect a 10% increase in the radiograph ordering rate]. There was also no difference in the radiograph ordering rate in the first 3 months of the postintervention period compared with the last 3 months of the postintervention period (68.8% vs 64.7%, respectively, p > 0.30).
Conclusions: Compliance with the Ottawa ankle rules was sustained during a 12-month postintervention surveillance period when physicians did not know they were being observed. Physicians will continue to use a simple clinical guideline once it has been learned.     

Radiographic interpretation by nurse practitioners in a minor injuries unit.

OBJECTIVE: To compare nurse practitioners with senior house officers (SHOs) for their ability to request and interpret correctly a limited range of x ray views of patients attending a minor injuries unit. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of case records. METHODS: 150 accident and emergency (A&E) records with x ray requests were randomly selected from the SHOs' first, second, and third 2-month period of their 6-month appointments; 150 record cards were randomly selected from a nearby minor injuries unit over the same period. Copies of the records were reviewed blind and a decision made as to whether x ray requests were appropriate; x ray interpretation was compared with that of a consultant radiologist. RESULTS: 106 x rays were taken on the MIU patients (71%) and 124 on the A&E patients (83%). There was no statistically significant differences in the ability of the nurse practitioners and the SHOs to request and interpret appropriate x rays. In both groups the decision to carry out an x ray was considered appropriate in 70% of patients; x rays were positive in about one third. The sensitivity of radiological interpretation was 93% in both groups, and there were 2% missed positives. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriately trained nursae practitioners are at least as good as SHOs in recognising the need for an x ray and are as competent in their interpretation.     

The tuning fork test--a useful tool for improving specificity in "Ottawa positive" patients after ankle inversion injury

The Ottawa ankle rules are a clinical instrument calibrated towards a high sensitivity in order not to miss any fractures of the ankle or mid-foot. This is at the cost of a mean specificity of around only 32%. The aim of this study was to determine the suitability of tuning fork testing in combination with existing Ottawa guidance for increasing the specificity in detecting fractures of the lateral malleolus. A prospective pilot study was carried out, in which a single trained investigator examined all patients with already "Ottawa positive" findings for possible lateral malleolus injury by applying a tuning fork (C(o) 128 Hz). The tuning fork test findings were compared with formal reports of plain ankle radiographs using simple cross-table analysis. The observed prevalence of ankle fractures was 5 of 49 (10%). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated as 100% and 61%, respectively, for tuning fork testing on the tip of the lateral malleolus (TLM), and as 100% and 95%, respectively, for testing on the distal fibula shaft (DFS). The associated positive and negative likelihood ratios were 2.59 and 0 (TLM), and 22 and 0 (DFS), respectively. The data were significant, with p = 0.014 (TLM) and p<0.001 (DFS). This study suggests that additional tuning fork testing of "Ottawa positive" patients may lead to a marked reduction in ankle radiographs, with consequently reduced radiation exposure and journey time. This may be particularly relevant in situations where radiological facilities are not readily available (expedition medicine) or where access to these has to be prioritised (major incidents, natural catastrophes).     

Emergency Physicians' Attitudes toward and Use of Clinical Decision Rules for Radiography

Objectives: 1) To assess Canadian emergency physicians' (EPs') use of and attitudes toward 2 radiographic clinical decision rules that have recently been developed and to identify physician characteristics associated with decision rule use; 2) to determine the use of CT head and cervical spine radiography by EPs and their beliefs about the appropriateness of expert recommendations supporting the routine use of these radiographic procedures; and 3) to determine the potential acceptance of clinical decision rules for CT scan in patients with minor head injury and cervical spine radiography in trauma patients. Methods: A cross-sectional anonymous mail survey of a random sample of 300 members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians using Dillman's Total Design Method for mail surveys. Results: Of 288 eligible physicians, 232 (81%) responded. More than 95% of the respondents stated they currently used the Ottawa Ankle Rules and were willing to consider using the newly developed Ottawa Knee Rule. Physician characteristics related to frequent use of the Ottawa Ankle Rules were younger age, fewer years since graduating from medical school, part time or resident employment status, working in a hospital without a CT scanner, and believing that decision rules are not oversimplified cookbook medicine or too rigid to apply. Eighty-five percent did not agree that all patients with minor head injuries should receive a CT head scan and only 3.5% stated they always refer such patients for CT scan. Similarly, 78.5% of the respondents did not agree that all trauma patients should receive cervical spine radiography and only 13.2% said they always refer such patients for cervical spine radiography. Ninety-seven and 98% stated they would be willing to consider using well-validated decision rules for CT scan of the head and cervical spine radiography, respectively. Fifty-two percent and 67% of the respondents required the proposed CT and C-spine to be 100% sensitive for identifying serious injuries, respectively. Conclusions: Canadian EPs are generally supportive of clinical decision rules and, in particular, have very positive attitudes toward the Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules. Furthermore, EPs disagree with recommendations for routine use of CT head and cervical spine radiography and strongly support the development of well-validated decision rules for the use of CT head and cervical spine radiography. Most EPs expected the latter rules to be 100% sensitive for acute clinically significant lesions.     

Primary reasons for ED visits and procedures performed for patients who saw nurse practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known, from a national perspective, about what types of patients are seen by nurse practitioners in the emergency department. METHODS: Data from 1545 participating emergency departments across the United States during 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 were collected from nationally representative samples of urban and rural hospitals using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys. Results Nurse practitioners saw 5.76 million ED patients during the 4-year period. Using the Reason for Visit Classification developed by the National Center for Health Statistics, the primary category for patients seen by nurse practitioners was classified as "Injury by type and/or location." The types of injuries in this category were lacerations and cuts to an upper extremity and facial area; injuries to the head, neck, and face; and foreign bodies in the eye. The next most common category was classified under "General symptoms." Nurse practitioners saw patients in this category with symptoms of chest pain, side or flank pain, fever, and edema. DISCUSSION: The findings from this study provide insight into the types of patient visits seen by nurse practitioners in emergency departments in the United States and the services and procedures that were received by patients.     

Validation of the Ottawa ankle rules in a Hong Kong ED

The Ottawa ankle rules (OAR) have been validated in many Western countries. However, a recent study performed in an accident and emergency department in Singapore failed to validate the OAR. Therefore, the implementation of the use of OAR in accident and emergency departments in Hong Kong may be treated with skepticism. This prospective study was performed to validate the ordering of radiographs using OAR in Chinese patients with foot and ankle injuries in Hong Kong. Emergency physicians trained in the use of the OAR assessed 773 eligible patients and one hundred thirty-one fractures were identified. The sensitivity and specificity of the OAR for ankle injuries was 98% and 40.8%. For midfoot injuries, the sensitivity and specificity of the OAR was 100% and 43.8%. We concluded that the OAR are applicable in our population with potential advantages for reducing the number of unnecessary investigations and shortening the patients' length of stay in accident and emergency departments.     

Nurse practitioners substituting for general practitioners: randomized controlled trial

Title.  Nurse practitioners substituting for general practitioners: randomized controlled trial.
Aim.  This paper is a report of a study conducted to evaluate process and outcomes of care provided to patients with common complaints by general practitioners or specially trained nurse practitioners as first point of contact.
Background.  Studies in the United States of America and Great Britain show that substituting nurse practitioners for general practitioners results in higher patient satisfaction and higher quality of care. As the American and British healthcare system and settings differ from that in the Netherlands, a Dutch trial was conducted.
Methods.  A total of 1501 patients in 15 general practices were randomized to consultation by a general practitioner or a nurse practitioner. Data were collected over a 6-month period in 2006 by means of questionnaires, extracting medical records from practice computer systems and recording the length of consultations.
Findings.  In both groups, the patients highly appreciated the quality of care. No statistically significant differences were found in health status, medical resource consumption and compliance of practical guidelines in primary care in the Netherlands. Patients in the NP intervention group were more often invited to re-attend, had more follow-up consultations and their consultations took statistically significantly longer.
Conclusion.  Nurse practitioners and general practitioners provide comparable care. Our findings support an increased involvement of specially trained nurse practitioners in the Dutch primary care and contribute to knowledge of the effectiveness of care provision by nurse practitioners from a national and international perspective.     

Effectiveness of emergency nurses’ use of the Ottawa Ankle Rules to initiate radiographic tests on improving healthcare outcomes for patients with ankle injuries: A systematic review

BackgroundThe Ottawa Ankle Rules provide guidelines for clinicians on the recommendation of radiographic tests to verify fractures in patients with ankle injuries. The use of the Ottawa Ankle Rules by emergency nurses has been suggested to minimise unnecessary radiographic-test requests and reduce patients’ length of stay in emergency departments. However, the findings of studies in this area are inconsistent.DesignA systematic review was conducted to synthesise the most accurate evidence available on the extent to which emergency nurses’ use of the Ottawa Ankle Rules to initiate radiographic tests improves healthcare outcomes for patients with ankle injuries.Data sourcesThe systematic review attempted to identify all relevant published and unpublished studies in English and Chinese from databases such as Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, ProQuest Health and Medical Complete, EBM Reviews, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL Plus, the British Nursing Index, Scopus, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China Journal Net, WanFang Data, the National Central Library Periodical Literature System, HyRead, the Digital Dissertation Consortium, MedNar and Google Scholar.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of all of the studies identified during the search, based on their titles and abstracts. If a study met the criteria for inclusion, or inconclusive information was available in its title and abstract, the full text was retrieved for further analysis. The methodological quality of all of the eligible studies was assessed independently by the two reviewers.ResultsThe search of databases and other sources yielded 1603 records. The eligibility of 17 full-text articles was assessed, and nine studies met the inclusion criteria. All nine studies were subjected to narrative analysis, and five were meta-analysed. All of the studies investigated the use of the refined Ottawa Ankle Rules. The results indicated that emergency nurses’ use of the refined Ottawa Ankle Rules minimised unnecessary radiographic-test requests and reduced patients’ length of stay in emergency departments. However, the use of these rules in urgent-care departments did not reduce unnecessary radiographic-test requests or patients’ length of stay. The implementation of the refined Ottawa Ankle Rules by emergency nurses with different backgrounds, including nurse practitioners or general emergency nurses was found to reduce patients’ length of stay in emergency departments.ConclusionsThe results of the systematic review suggested that a nurse-initiated radiographic test protocol should be introduced as standard practice in emergency departments.     

Reliability of ophthalmic accident and emergency referrals: a new role for the emergency nurse practitioner?

Background and objectives: Annual attendances at the accident and emergency (A&E) department of St Bartholomew''s and The Royal London NHS Trust exceed 100 000 people of which 6% are ophthalmic. This study evaluated the accuracy of eye referrals from A&E senior house officers (SHOs) and emergency nurse practitioners (ENPs) and the impact any inaccuracies may have had on out of hours work. Methods: Over a four week period a record of all referrals from the A&E department was made. The doctor receiving the referral made a note of clinical variables as reported by the referring clinician. When the patient was subsequently reviewed by an ophthalmologist, a record was again made of these findings. Any discrepancies were recorded. Results: A total of 67 patients were recruited. ENPs were found to be consistently more accurate than SHOs in every aspect of the assessment, most notably in visual acuity (p = 0.0029), and provisional diagnosis (p = 0.012). Furthermore, had the examination findings been accurate, 58% of all SHO referrals seen after hours would have been triaged to the next available clinic but only 10% of ENP referrals could have been seen at the next clinic session (p = 0.027). Conclusion: This study found ENPs to be more accurate than A&E SHOs in history taking, recording visual acuity, describing ocular anatomy, and making provisional diagnoses. A significant reduction in out of hours ophthalmic workload may be achieved in the authors'' unit if ENPs were to see all eye emergencies.