Tag Archives: philosophy

What Would You Do? The Elderly Patient With Subdural Hematoma – Part 2

I described several variations on the theme of elderly patients and subdural hematoma in my last post. All were situations in which an operation was not immediately indicated. Practice guidelines were in place to smooth the evaluation process for such patients. But do those guidelines really apply in some or all of these cases?

The real question that needs to be answered is “what is the real purpose of the guideline?”

Is it designed to standardize and streamline care? Certainly. But what is it’s real purpose? It is supposed to separate those who need additional treatment from those who do not. So in this case, it seeks to identify patients who are likely to need surgical intervention for their lesion.

In scenario 2, where the patient presents 8 hours after the fall, the “evaluation timer” started at the time of the event. If your practice guideline dictates that you obtain a repeat head CT 6 hours after arrival in the ED, isn’t your first scan at 8 hours really the same as the repeat scan? Shouldn’t you just need the one image, then send them home if they have a normal neurologic exam?

And isn’t there a point at which surgical intervention is no longer an option? That’s what makes scenarios 3-5 more difficult. Can we identify a subset of patients for whom surgery is not an option? For those who have a written “do not resuscitate” status (scenario 4) and don’t change their mind, is any followup evaluation needed at all?

For the other scenarios, we really need to know if there are subsets of patients for whom surgical intervention is inadvisable or contraindicated. Those patients should not need followup studies or even additional monitoring. One could even argue that they don’t need to be seen in an ED at all!

Lots of questions! In my next post, I’ll review some of the data on outcomes after brain surgery for traumatic injuries in elderly patients. Hopefully, we can come to some conclusions and/or recommendations for my scenarios based on this data!

 

What Would You Do? The Elderly Patient With Subdural Hematoma

All trauma centers are seeing a steady increase in the number of elderly patients, particularly victims of falls. Frequently, these patients strike their head, and some develop various flavors of intracranial hemorrhage. Several are taking drugs that interfere with clotting or platelet function.

Many centers, like my own, have developed practice guidelines to help trauma professionals deal with these issues in a consistent fashion. But are the guidelines suitable for all elderly head-injured patients?

Let’s consider a case.

Scenario 1. An elderly female falls at her senior living facility, striking her head on a side table.  She is brought to your center’s emergency department for evaluation. An exam and head CT are performed, which demonstrate an asymptomatic 6mm subdural hematoma with no midline shift. The patient is not taking any drugs that would interfere with clotting. You have a clinical practice guideline that requires neurologic monitoring for 6 hours, followed by a repeat CT scan. If the neurologic exam remains stable and the repeat CT shows no progression of the lesion, the patient may be discharged.

Seems pretty straightforward, right? Now let’s add some interesting tidbits.

Scenario 2. Same as above, but the patient is brought to your center the next morning, 8 hours after the fall.

Scenario 3. Same as scenario 1, but the patient is very demented.

Scenario 4. Same as scenario 1, but the patient has a well-documented “do not actively resuscitate” order in place.

Scenario 5. Same as scenario 1, but the patient is 95 years old.

Think about these carefully. Would the extra findings in scenarios 2-5 cause you to change your practice and diverge from the practice guideline? In what ways? What else do you need to know to make good decisions?

Over my next few posts, I’ll consider each of these cases. I’ll cite some of the pertinent literature that I think we need to know. Then I’ll finish up with my take on each of the scenarios.

As always, feel free to share your thoughts about them. You can email, leave comments at the end of this post, or shout it out on Twitter. I’ll respond to each and every one.

Time for some more philosophy! After providing trauma care for decades, one begins to see the common threads and underlying principles of their area of expertise. I’ve been trying to crystallize these for years, and today I’m going to share one of the most basic laws of trauma care.

The First Law of Trauma: Any anomaly in your trauma patient is due to trauma, no matter how unlikely it may seem.

Some examples:

  • An elderly patient who crashes his car and presents with arrhythmias and chest pain is not having a heart attack. Nor does he need a cardiologist or a trip to the cath lab.
  • A spot in the liver after blunt trauma is not a cyst or hemangioma; it is a laceration until proven otherwise.
  • A patient found at the bottom of a flight of stairs with blood in their head did not have a stroke and then fall down.

Bottom line: The possibility of trauma always comes first! It is your job to rule it out. Only consider non-traumatic problems as a last resort. Don’t let your non-trauma colleagues try to steer you down the wrong path, only to have your patient suffer.

How To Tell If Research Is Crap

I recently read a very interesting article on research, and found it to be very pertinent to the state of academic research today. It was published on Manager Mint, a site that considers itself to be “the most valuable business resource.” (?) But the message is very applicable to trauma professionals, medical professionals, and probably anyone else who engages in research pursuits. The link to the full article is listed at the end of this post.

1. Research is not good because it is true, but because it is interesting.

Interesting research doesn’t just restate what is already known. It creates or explores new territory. Don’t just read and believe existing dogma.

Critique it.

Question it. Then devise a way to see if it’s really true.

2. Good research is innovative.

Some of the best ideas come from combining ideas from various disciplines.

Some of the best research ideas are derived from applying concepts from totally unrelated fields to your own.

That’s why I read so many journals, blogs, and newsfeeds from many different fields. And even if you are not doing the research, a broad background can help you sort out and gain perspective as you read the works of others.

3. Good research is useful.

Yes, basic bench level research can potentially be helpful in understanding all the nuances of a particular biochemical or disease process.But a lot of the time, it just demonstrates relatively unimportant chemical or biological reactions. And only a very small number actually contribute to the big picture. For most of us working at a macro level, research that could actually change our practice or policies is really what we need.

4. The best research should be empirically derived.

It shouldn’t rely on complicated statistical models. If it does, it means that the effect being measured is very subtle, and potentially not clinically significant. There is a big difference between statistical and clinical relevance.

Reference: If You Can’t Answer “Yes” To These 5 Questions, Your Research Is Rubbish. Garrett Stone. Click here to view on Manager Mint.

Why Is So Much Published Research So Bad?

Welcome to two days of rants about bad research!

I read lots of trauma-related articles every week. And as I browse through them, I often find studies that leave me wondering how they ever got published. And this is not a new phenomenon. Look at any journal a year ago. Five years ago. Twenty years ago. And even older. The research landscape is littered with their carcasses.

And on a related note, sit down with any serious clinical question in your field you want to answer. Do a deep dive with one of the major search engines and try to get an answer. Or better yet, let the professionals from the Cochrane Library or other organization do it for you. Invariably, you will find hints and pieces of the answer you seek. But never the completely usable solution you desire. 

Why is it so hard? Even with tens of thousands of articles being published every year?

Because there is no overarching plan! Individuals are forced to produce research as a condition of their employment. Or to assure career advancement. Or to get into medical school, or a “good” residency. And in the US, Level I trauma centers are required to publish at least 20 papers every three years to maintain their status. So there is tremendous pressure across all disciplines to publish something.

Unfortunately, that something is usually work that is easily conceived and quickly executed. A registry review, or some other type of retrospective study. They are easy to get approval for, take little time to complete and analyze, and have the potential to get published quickly.

But what this “publish or perish” mentality promotes is a random jumble of answers that we didn’t really need and can’t learn a thing from. There is no planning. There is no consideration of what questions we really need to answer. Just a random bunch of thoughts that are easy to get published but never get cited by anyone else.

Bottom line: How do we fix this? Not easily. Give every work a “quality score.” Instead of focusing on the quantity of publications, the “authorities” (tenure committees and the journal editors themselves) need to focus in on their quality. Extra credit should be given to multicenter trial involvement, prospective studies, and other higher quality projects. These will increase the quality score. The actual number of publications should not matter as much as how much high quality work is in progress. Judge the individual or center on their total quality score, not the absolute number of papers they produce. Sure, the sheer number of studies published will decline, but the quality will increase exponentially!

Tomorrow, the big picture view on how to detect bad research.