An observational study in Low Back Pain, Headache and Head Injury, Minor, sponsored by Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Withdrawn at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-03-13.
Sponsored by Vanderbilt University Medical Center · Observational
Many patients who present to the emergency department (ED) receive a vast array of diagnostic tests, some of which might not be useful. Providers often feel obligated to order so many tests to protect themselves against the risk of being sued. The investigators believe if a standard of care providing legal protection for certain clinical conditions were agreed upon and followed, unnecessary testing would significantly decrease in the ED, which, in turn, would improve patient safety, augment the quality of care delivered, and increase patient satisfaction.
Overutilization of healthcare resources often has negative implications. The Choosing Wisely campaign, an initiative of the American Board of Internal Medicine, was proposed to help patients and caregivers engage in shared conversations to reduce overuse of potentially harmful tests and procedures. However, the Choosing Wisely campaign's lack of linkage to medical liability considerations has substantially reduced its impact.
For instance, excessive medical imaging and its associated radiation exposure inflicts a measurably real and significant risk of carcinogenesis, drives costs, and therefore is a significant Choosing Wisely target. This is a particularly important consideration in the emergency care setting, frequently cited as an extremely utilization rich environment due to the higher inherent risk of missed pathology and the isolation of clinical care.
The investigators hypothesize a special type of predetermined standard of care (a "safe harbor") can be defined based upon medical evidence, and upon consultation among multiple experts and advisors, for a selected number of clinical conditions within the specialty of emergency medicine (EM). Furthermore, a state-based, federally-contracted and legally-recognized Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) could adopt the "safe harbor" and, in doing so, establish the standard of care in the context of a legal liability claim. Practitioners who meet such a standard and implement it appropriately satisfy their obligation under the law of medical malpractice.
Ultimately, defining provider liability through this predetermined, or ex ante, standard of care, may result in a significant reduction in healthcare resource utilization within EM. Through this reduction, the quality of care would not decrease and a measurable reduction in radiation exposure would occur. Moreover, these predefined standards of care would improve communication between patient and provider during the clinical transaction.
A team of Vanderbilt University medicine, law, economics, and clinical faculty will undertake this. The investigators have summoned a broad group of technical experts and advisors and defined safe harbors for a narrow set of distinct clinical conditions within EM. These safe harbors will be presented for review and approval by the appropriate QIO. Specific Aim 3 will advance the safe harbor demonstration to EM practitioners at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and determine the effects on radiation exposure, length of stay, patient satisfaction, patient costs, charges, and adverse event reporting.
253 studies on the registry are indexed under Craniocerebral Trauma; 45 are open to participants now.
Browse Craniocerebral Trauma studies →Vanderbilt University Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 824 studies on the registry; 164 are open to participants now.
Of its 122 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 91 (75%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center emergency department patients. Comparator Northwestern University emergency department patients.
Exclusion Criteria:
Adult emergency department patients presenting with a chief complaint of 1) low back pain, 2) headache, or 3) minor head injury.
Other: Safe harbor clinical practice guideline
A safe harbor is a special type of clinical practice guideline which, under existing federal law, may serve as the legal standard of care, not just evidence of the standard of care. If a patient with a safe harbor condition satisfies all safe harbor inclusion criteria and does not meet any exclusion criteria, no imaging is required, and the patient may be discharged with specific instructions. If a patient is excluded from the safe harbor, then imaging decisions are per customary practice. The safe harbor clinical practice guidelines are provided to treating ED physicians, but they are not obligated to use them. The safe harbor pathways do not limit the diagnostic and therapeutic approach patients and physicians undertake during a clinical encounter. They have the liberty in this decision to proceed jointly down a clinical pathway most appropriate to the individual clinical circumstance.
Radiation exposure
Aggregate ED radiologic imaging - X-ray or CT scan and MRI
Time frame: June 15, 2022 - March 31, 2024
Length of stay
Aggregate ED length of stay defined as provider evaluation to disposition
Time frame: June 15, 2022 - March 31, 2024
Patient satisfaction
Press Ganey scores, Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS), aggregate number of patient complaints
Time frame: June 15, 2022 - March 31, 2024
Patient cost
Aggregate out of pocket patient costs
Time frame: June 15, 2022 - March 31, 2024
Patient charges
Aggregate patient charges
Time frame: June 15, 2022 - March 31, 2024
Adverse event reporting
Aggregate number of reports per patient per condition
Time frame: June 15, 2022 - March 31, 2024
Plan to share: No
This study is withdrawn, as verified in Feb 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center