St. Paul Early Discharge Rule for narcan reversed opiod OD

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Groove

Member
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
3,156
Reaction score
3,751
Original Study:


Validation Study:


Medscape Article:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/907170

Most With OD Can Be Discharged From ED an Hour After Naloxone
Most patients who overdose on opioids can be safely discharged from the emergency department (ED) as early as an hour after prehospital administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone, a study has found.
Opioid-related ED visits nearly doubled in the United States from 2005 to 2014. Management of these patients varies among EDs, the authors note.
"Recommendations for patient observation after naloxone administration are inconsistent. Patients can be observed for 6 or more hours, or they can be immediately discharged with no further evaluation," Brian M. Clemency, DO, the Department of Emergency Medicine and the Department of Exercise and Nutrition Science, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, and the Erie County Medical Center, New York, said in a news release.
"The question is, which of these patients needs to be watched longer?" he asked. "Right now, there isn't a really good rule. This has wide-ranging negative implications for emergency care and opioid use disorder treatment."
The researchers conducted a prospective study to validate the early discharge rule practiced at St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada, which allows for discharge after 1 hour for those in whom the following six criteria are within normal limits: ambulation, oxygen saturation (> 95%), respiratory rate (>10 and <20 breaths/min), temperature (>35.0° C and <37.5° C), heart rate (>50 and <100 beats/min), and Glasgow Coma Scale score (15).
The study by Clemency and colleagues was published online December 28 in Academic Emergency Medicine.
"Validation of the St. Paul's Early Discharge Rule is necessary to ensure that these criteria are appropriate to apply to patients presenting after an unintentional presumed opioid overdose in the context of emerging synthetic opioids, expanded naloxone access, and the emergence of intranasal naloxone administration," the researchers explain.
The study included 538 adult patients who presented by ambulance to the ED from 2016 to 2017, who had been administered at least one dose of naloxone before entering the hospital, and who underwent evaluation by an emergency medicine provider 1 hour after naloxone administration. (The typical observation period at the hospital is 4 hours.) The mean age of the patients was 33.4 years, and 69.5% were male.
The researchers examined whether clinical judgment, the St. Paul's Early Discharge Rule, or both, when utilized 1 hour after prehospital administration of naloxone, could predict who would have an adverse event (AE) within 24 hours.
AEs occurred in 82 patients (15.4%), but none died within 48 hours. The most common AEs were need for supplemental oxygen (11.3%), repeat naloxone for hypoventilation (3%), and assisted ventilation (2.6%).
Overall, the rule had a sensitivity of 84.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.2 - 92.1), a specificity of 62.1% (95% CI, 57.6 - 66.5), and a negative predictive value of 95.6% (95% CI, 93.3 - 97.9). The inability to mobilize normally had the greatest sensitivity (58.0%) for predicting AEs; an abnormal temperature had the greatest specificity (99.1%). The rule failed to predict AEs in just 13 of 538 cases (2.4%).
These results are in line with the derivation study by the rule's originators, which found that the AE rate was 16% and the negative predictive value was 99%.
Only one patient in the study whose 1-hour evaluation results were normal subsequently needed additional naloxone following another presumed heroin overdose. "The rule is simple to follow and can be used by health care providers with varying levels of training and experience," Clemency said in the news release. "We anticipate this study will lead to nationally standardized recommendations for the observation of patients following the administration of naloxone for suspected opioid overdose," he continued.
When used in tandem with healthcare provider judgment, the rule had a sensitivity of 87.8% (95% CI, 80.7% - 94.9%), a specificity of 53.0% (95% CI, 48.4% - 57.7%), and a negative predictive value of 96.0% (95% CI, 93.5 - 98.4%). Used together, provider judgment and the St. Paul's Early Discharge Rule predicted AEs in all but 10 of 529 patients (1.9%) .
"Applying the prediction rule for patients for whom providers have a low clinical suspicion for AEs is a reasonable approach for risk stratifying patients for early discharge following naloxone administration for suspected opioid overdose," the authors write. They add, however, that the rule should be used with caution in cases of known oral or mixed overdose. They also call for further study to determine the rule's effectiveness in the context of overdoses of different drugs, drug combinations, and routes of administration.

To be fair....a critique from REBEL EM:


St. Paul Early Discharge Criteria:

-Normal ambulation
-Normal oxygen saturation
-Normal respiratory rate
-Normal temperature
-Normal heart rate
-GCS 15

In the words of a journal club attending from residency....

"Well doctors....Does this change your practice? Why or why not?!"

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 user
And I know what some of you are thinking..."Why do I care? All of mine sign out AMA after getting unloaded off the stretcher anyway!"
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 8 users
I used to use this, but now we have an institutional policy that all heroin overdoses get a signed involuntary psychiatric hold and mandatory mental health evaluation. Luckily we have 2-3 mental health assessors on duty at any time.

Massachussetts has a law requiring such measures.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I used to use this, but now we have an institutional policy that all heroin overdoses get a signed involuntary psychiatric hold and mandatory mental health evaluation. Luckily we have 2-3 mental health assessors on duty at any time.

Massachussetts has a law requiring such measures.
Damn that's intense.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using SDN mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I used to use this, but now we have an institutional policy that all heroin overdoses get a signed involuntary psychiatric hold and mandatory mental health evaluation. Luckily we have 2-3 mental health assessors on duty at any time.

Massachussetts has a law requiring such measures.
Incorrect re: Massachusetts. There is a law stating that you must offer any opioid overdose or person who got narcan a social work evaluation for their substance abuse, however, the patient is free to refuse if sober. There is nothing about putting patients on involuntary psychiatric holds at all. Even if they accept the eval, they are free to change their mind and leave.
 
Incorrect re: Massachusetts. There is a law stating that you must offer any opioid overdose or person who got narcan a social work evaluation for their substance abuse, however, the patient is free to refuse if sober. There is nothing about putting patients on involuntary psychiatric holds at all. Even if they accept the eval, they are free to change their mind and leave.

Ah, I stand corrected.
 
Damn that's intense.

Don't agree with it, but when the powers that be high up in the health system say so, then I'm not going to risk my career going against them. "Per xxx Health System policy, the patient was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold pending mental health evaluation."
 
Don't agree with it, but when the powers that be high up in the health system say so, then I'm not going to risk my career going against them. "Per xxx Health System policy, the patient was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold pending mental health evaluation."

This works? Sweet!

"Per HCA policy, the patient was given potentially inappropriate antibiotics and was ordered useless tests, like reeeal fast."
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
Dunno. That’s my practice pattern for the last 10 years. Not sure why they needed the study. Are people watching for more than 60-90 minutes
 
The words smallest violin in the world spring to mind
 
I used to use this, but now we have an institutional policy that all heroin overdoses get a signed involuntary psychiatric hold and mandatory mental health evaluation. Luckily we have 2-3 mental health assessors on duty at any time.

Massachussetts has a law requiring such measures.
Sounds like whoever created that policy did not consult with legal prior to implementation. That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Your chart is essentially going to demonstrate an A&Ox 3 pt with clear capacity to make their own medical decisions, denying SI, endorsing accidentally OD’ing on a recreational drug who you are keeping against their will. That is a terrible policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Exactly. Since when is substance use an indication to hold someone against their will once sober?
Sounds like whoever created that policy did not consult with legal prior to implementation. That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Your chart is essentially going to demonstrate an A&Ox 3 pt with clear capacity to make their own medical decisions, denying SI, endorsing accidentally OD’ing on a recreational drug who you are keeping against their will. That is a terrible policy.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using SDN mobile
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Sounds like whoever created that policy did not consult with legal prior to implementation. That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Your chart is essentially going to demonstrate an A&Ox 3 pt with clear capacity to make their own medical decisions, denying SI, endorsing accidentally OD’ing on a recreational drug who you are keeping against their will. That is a terrible policy.

This actually came jointly from legal/risk management and behavioral health. My state allows someone who is drug dependent or serious risk to life to be held against his or her will. If you're overdosing on heroin, you're drug dependent or at risk of losing your life.
 
I am at a big academic center in the midwest, and we also place them all on transportation holds for a minimum of four hours even if they're sober, and often for longer, per hospital policy. Same rationale as @southerndoc mentioned. They're all also restrained until cleared for discharge. The four hour recommendation is from our toxicologists and poison control center, though I'll have to ask around about the linked trial and earlier d/c.
 
I am at a big academic center in the midwest, and we also place them all on transportation holds for a minimum of four hours even if they're sober, and often for longer, per hospital policy. Same rationale as @southerndoc mentioned. They're all also restrained until cleared for discharge. The four hour recommendation is from our toxicologists and poison control center, though I'll have to ask around about the linked trial and earlier d/c.
Really weird policy. Like I get it if they're actively intoxicated sure. But once the narcan goes in they are sober as a bird. I can make a medical recommendation to stay to be observed but keeping someone against their will as a sober, non psych decompensated person is really weird.



Sent from my Pixel 3 using SDN mobile
 
I never restrain anyone who is alert and sober regardless of medical condition. Not really legally defensible if they should sue. Don't wanna stay and wait the 4 hours? Great here's the AMA form. Have a nice day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Would be hard to sue in Georgia because of the gross negligence clause. We are acting in the patient's best interest in the policy.

I believe it was San Francisco that showed only 2 out of 800 people given naloxone and not transported died. One of them was an MVA where he was a restrained passenger so clearly not related to opiate overdose. Naloxone and discharge is safe.
 
Dunno. That’s my practice pattern for the last 10 years. Not sure why they needed the study. Are people watching for more than 60-90 minutes

Well, virtually any EM text is going to recommend 4-6 hours of observation (Same as most poison centers if you happened to call them for an opiod overdose though most of us never do). Personally, for the ones that are significant opiod overdoses....I've been watching them 2 hours. That has always made sense to me given narcan half life combined with potential for extended release narcotic ingestions, co-ingestions that they might not be reporting, etc.. Anecdotally though, there are a few I've discharged after an hour and I've always felt that with a reassuring exam, their risk was very low for any sort of adverse effect barring that they did not go back out and overdose again. Until now, all we've had is the St. Paul derivation study from 2000. Now we have a validation study and in my opinion, more of a leg to stand on if we discharge patients after an hour of observation. With all the practice patterns I've observed over the years, I'd say 1 hour obs is hyper aggressive for most EM docs. What I usually run into is that I recommend 2 hour obs and they virtually never stick around. Most sign out AMA.

For myself, 1 hour obs is a little aggressive for my historical comfort level, but I think the data is decent and seems to indicate that most traditional guidelines are probably overly conservative.
 
In residency, all my Toxicologist attendings did one hour based on narcan half life, so that was my practice pattern. I've noticed a lot of people in local practice doing 4 hours which is crazy to me as that guarantees pretty much 100% AMA rate and arbitrary. I split the difference and do 2 hours (starting from narcan admin time in the field, not ED time).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Overdose fun facts: The half life of methadone is 1-2 days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Overdose fun facts: The half life of methadone is 1-2 days.

Not sure if this is where you were going with this, but I'm guessing it was: Use caution generalizing studies on heroin overdose to your general population - there are a lot of other opioids around and some have significantly longer half lives.

That said, I don't restrain overdose patients who have capacity to refuse care. But I do document very well on such cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not sure if this is where you were going with this, but I'm guessing it was: Use caution generalizing studies on heroin overdose to your general population - there are a lot of other opioids around and some have significantly longer half lives.
Yes, because these situations can get very messy and don't always fit decision rules in the real world. Example: A methadone OD was observed for multiple hours, then discharged. The patient ended up dead. A lawsuit was filed. The defendants ended up winning, but there's learning to be had here.

Decision rules are best for learning, but never good when rigidly applied while ignoring context in real world scenarios. Never forget that decision rules necessarily have exclusion criteria when they're formulated, excluding patients who'll make their data messy. In the real world we don't have the luxury of a conveniently screened patient population. But we can screen out overly ambitious decision rules with limitations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I set the expectation of two hours of observation during my first discussion with a patient, but am happy if they wait an hour before deciding to go AMA. If not suicidal and clinically sober, then can sign out immediately if they so choose.

Would be hard to sue in Georgia because of the gross negligence clause. We are acting in the patient's best interest in the policy.

Unless Peter Rosen decides to come to town...

And I think you're referring to the EMS study from San Antonio, though my phone's not allowing me to copy and paste the link.
 
Yes, because these situations can get very messy and don't always fit decision rules in the real world. Example: A methadone OD was observed for multiple hours, then discharged. The patient ended up dead. A lawsuit was filed. The defendants ended up winning, but there's learning to be had here.

Decision rules are best for learning, but never good when rigidly applied while ignoring context in real world scenarios. Never forget that decision rules necessarily have exclusion criteria when they're formulated, excluding patients who'll make their data messy. In the real world we don't have the luxury of a conveniently screened patient population. But we can screen out overly ambitious decision rules with limitations.
Sounds like the learning to be had is "don't prescribe methadone"
 
Sounds like the learning to be had is "don't prescribe methadone"
That's exactly correct. With a duration of pain relieving affect of 6 hours, but toxic metabolite half-life of 2 days, it's easy for a non-compliant patient to dose stack during a pain exacerbation and have build up of toxic metabolites that depress respiration as much as the active drug. I have zero patients on methadone. Also, it's worth noting that addiction patients learn very quick that getting methadone from a methadone clinic requires they go to the clinic to get their dose, daily. Many will try to drift into a Primary Care or Pain practice where, if they can get methadone prescribed by telling someone they're in "chronic pain," they can avoid daily dosing and won't have to be seen more than monthly (or every three months, if anyone allows that anymore). This creates a perfect storm where the prescriber thinks they're prescribing methadone for a low addiction-risk patient for pain, yet are actually prescribing it for someone with a 100% risk of addiction who's no longer receiving treatment for it.
 
And I think you're referring to the EMS study from San Antonio, though my phone's not allowing me to copy and paste the link.

San Diego

Prehospital treatment of opioid overdose in Copenhagen--is it safe to discharge on-scene? - PubMed - NCBI Copenhagen

Assessing the Risk of Prehospital Administration of Naloxone with Subsequent Refusal of Care. - PubMed - NCBI Los Angeles

There's been quite a few. Not sure which I was referencing, and obviously I had some of my numbers off. Was about 5+ years ago that I read the studies.
 

Just noticed you guys are 3rd to last on lawsuits according to this link.

Then I checked the compensation info posted other day for GA:

Georgia: $267/hr., $446,000 ann.; 71% PC-BC; 90% NCG; high of $365/hr.; up 11%

Which seems to put GA leading the pack in the SE as far as compensation and low malpractice suits. GA suddenly became a lot more attractive to me, lol. I need to find me that $365/hr job.
 
Yes, because these situations can get very messy and don't always fit decision rules in the real world. Example: A methadone OD was observed for multiple hours, then discharged. The patient ended up dead. A lawsuit was filed. The defendants ended up winning, but there's learning to be had here.

Decision rules are best for learning, but never good when rigidly applied while ignoring context in real world scenarios. Never forget that decision rules necessarily have exclusion criteria when they're formulated, excluding patients who'll make their data messy. In the real world we don't have the luxury of a conveniently screened patient population. But we can screen out overly ambitious decision rules with limitations.

I mean... that law suit had nothing to do with the methadone nor the observation time. Pt was taking two different types of opiates and the suit was over the fact that the patient wasnt told to decrease either of their doses. (that the patient was also using ilicitly obtained semi-synthetic po tabs that she never disclosed is somehow not exculpatory for the doctor. I will never understand that). It even says that the observation and in-ED care was considered fully appropriate. The apparent hook of the case was missing the opportunity to identify she was on short and long acting opiates at doses that just didnt make sense - and the FP doctor who prescribed them also went down for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I mean... that law suit had nothing to do with the methadone nor the observation time. Pt was taking two different types of opiates and the suit was over the fact that the patient wasnt told to decrease either of their doses. (that the patient was also using ilicitly obtained semi-synthetic po tabs that she never disclosed is somehow not exculpatory for the doctor. I will never understand that). It even says that the observation and in-ED care was considered fully appropriate. The apparent hook of the case was missing the opportunity to identify she was on short and long acting opiates at doses that just didnt make sense - and the FP doctor who prescribed them also went down for that.
I’m not saying keep every OD forever. What I am saying is, be careful. While decision rules are all find and good for kicks and giggles for interns and medical students learning to make clinical decisions, they’re worth **** in court and in the morgue.

Opiate overdoses (that survive to make it to the ED) are near fatal events. If you want to be cavalier about discharging patients that survived near fatal event and a non-zero chance of recurrence, go right ahead. With these cases, the life threat comes not only from the math calculation of drug and narcan half lives, but from the psychosocial make up of the patient and their environment. That threat doesn’t go away when metabolism reaches 4 times half life.

It’s the last guy that touched the hot potato that gets burned. If they can find any weakness, no matter how small or imagined, in the documentation you leave behind, it’s often enough to twist your screws hard enough to extract a settlement and make you sweat.
 
Last edited:
Name one decision rule that is the gold standard for ruling any diagnosis?

Which decision rule do you use for bad outcomes missed by decision rules?
 
There are several well defined, trusted, and nationally accepted clinical decision rules we use on a regular basis. However most of them are used to "rule-out" and not "rule-in" disease. Actually...more specifically, they are rules to help you decide whether to pursue further testing. The CT Head minor trauma and C-spine imaging rules come to mind. Pediatric PECARN is another. If someone follows the ACEP and Chest guidelines for working up a PE and get a DDimer that is negative and there is a subsequent bad outcome, these are nationally accepted guidelines for helping doctors work up symptomology. Assuming that you applied the rules correctly, I would think these are (mostly) protective in court.

All decision rules are fallible to some degree. None are 100% sensitive and 100% specific. Frankly none are 100% sensitive. There are a few that get damn close though.

Lastly physicians have the "right" to disavow the recommendations of a clinical decision rule and just go for the testing. Not that I generally advise that but in certain situations it's totally acceptable. For instance, using the Heart Pathway, say you have a young guy with no RF who had chest pain and has a normal EKG. If the trop is negative he is low risk. If the trop is 1, he is still low risk because his HEART score < 3. However none of us are discharging anyone with a trop of 1.

I'm not so sure that clinical decision rules are worth s&^t in court...but I don't know. So I'm not gonna argue that vociferously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ottawa ankle rule.

But that's the only one I know of.


A patients comes in with a twisted ankle. You determine they don't need an x-ray because the Ottawa Ankle rule tells you they don't need it, because that's a reasonable thing to do (because it is). 2 weeks later, they come back. The ankle's still hurting a lot. Do you just repeat the Ottawa Ankle rule and if it says, "No x-ray needed," then you just send them home with no imaging? Because the ankle still hurts you send them to Ortho. And since the Ottawa Ankle rule is the gold standard, they just apply the decision rule again, and they send them home without imaging?

The Ottawa ankle rule is not a gold standard for ankle fractures. The gold standard is imaging. It's sensitivity and specificity is measured against the gold standard, which is the imaging. All of these decision rules are designed to approximate a given gold standard for diagnosis. Some approach the gold standard better than others. But none are equally as good. Some are almost as good (like the Ottawa Ankle rule) but none are equally as good.

I've seen some of you spend $10,000 CT'ing the ---- out of traumas you know are going to have nothing life threatening, while simultaneously being afraid to order a $50 ankle x-ray.
 
A patients comes in with a twisted ankle. You determine they don't need an x-ray because the Ottawa Ankle rule tells you they don't need it, because that's a reasonable thing to do (because it is). 2 weeks later, they come back. The ankle's still hurting a lot. Do you just repeat the Ottawa Ankle rule and if it says, "No x-ray needed," then you just send them home with no imaging? Because the ankle still hurts you send them to Ortho. And since the Ottawa Ankle rule is the gold standard, they just apply the decision rule again, and they send them home without imaging?

The Ottawa ankle rule is not a gold standard for ankle fractures. The gold standard is imaging. It's sensitivity and specificity is measured against the gold standard, which is the imaging. All of these decision rules are designed to approximate a given gold standard for diagnosis. Some approach the gold standard better than others. But none are equally as good. Some are almost as good (like the Ottawa Ankle rule) but none are equally as good.

I've seen some of you spend $10,000 CT'ing the ---- out of traumas you know are going to have nothing life threatening, while simultaneously being afraid to order a $50 ankle x-ray.
Honestly, Ottawa ankle rule is probably the most worthless clinical decision rule we have. The radiation from x-rays in minimal and most of these pt's are put into chairs or left in the waiting room, not even taking up an ER bed, which negates the purported benefit of using this rule (throughput). I have also had a couple patients that had a fracture despite being ruled out by Ottawa ankle rule. All it takes is one false negative on the Ottawa ankle rule to make you realize how silly it is to not perform the gold standard test when a patient was concerned enough about it to present to the ER, and the test is cheap, safe, quick, and easy to perform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A patients comes in with a twisted ankle. You determine they don't need an x-ray because the Ottawa Ankle rule tells you they don't need it, because that's a reasonable thing to do (because it is). 2 weeks later, they come back. The ankle's still hurting a lot. Do you just repeat the Ottawa Ankle rule and if it says, "No x-ray needed," then you just send them home with no imaging? Because the ankle still hurts you send them to Ortho. And since the Ottawa Ankle rule is the gold standard, they just apply the decision rule again, and they send them home without imaging?

The Ottawa ankle rule is not a gold standard for ankle fractures. The gold standard is imaging. It's sensitivity and specificity is measured against the gold standard, which is the imaging. All of these decision rules are designed to approximate a given gold standard for diagnosis. Some approach the gold standard better than others. But none are equally as good. Some are almost as good (like the Ottawa Ankle rule) but none are equally as good.

I've seen some of you spend $10,000 CT'ing the ---- out of traumas you know are going to have nothing life threatening, while simultaneously being afraid to order a $50 ankle x-ray.
Correct. I would not x-ray it the first time. Or the second time. And ironically the Ortho wouldn't x-ray it either. They'd get an MRI. Because it wouldn't be anything visible on XR as best as all our evidence suggests. I'd assume your make believe patient has a soft tissue injury only visible with MRI.

It has a "reported" 100% sensitivity in that all cases where it is reported to have failed are felt to represent bad exams.

I was being a jerk by saying the Ottawa ankle rule knowing it stands as the answer to the question of "what is the only decision rule in all of medicine that has no reported failures". You clearly didn't know that and ripped on that poor little ankle palpating rule. Sort of ruined my fun taking it so seriously.
 
Honestly, Ottawa ankle rule is probably the most worthless clinical decision rule we have. The radiation from x-rays in minimal and most of these pt's are put into chairs or left in the waiting room, not even taking up an ER bed, which negates the purported benefit of using this rule (throughput). I have also had a couple patients that had a fracture despite being ruled out by Ottawa ankle rule. All it takes is one false negative on the Ottawa ankle rule to make you realize how silly it is to not perform the gold standard test when a patient was concerned enough about it to present to the ER, and the test is cheap, safe, quick, and easy to perform.

If you really have, then publish it. The official stance of the literature is that it's never been shown to be wrong. this is not true of the Ottawa foot rule though. Only the Ottawa ankle rule.

I also think it's pretty useless as I generally give the pt the option to opt in to a x-ray anyway if they're negative and they usually do. But it gets me out of two or three xr's a month.

Edit: showing my work, 2011orthopedics did s meta-analysis of all the data and found 99.6% sensitivity with the 0.4 attested to human error in nearly all cases as far as they could assess.
 
Last edited:
If you really have, then publish it. The official stance of the literature is that it's never been shown to be wrong. this is not true of the Ottawa foot rule though. Only the Ottawa ankle rule.

I also think it's pretty useless as I generally give the pt the option to opt in to a x-ray anyway if they're negative and they usually do. But it gets me out of two or three xr's a month.
Where are you getting that? There have been several studies with false negative cases.
 
Where are you getting that? There have been several studies with false negative cases.

Have there? Have there been?

There haven't. Or more accurately the very few cases of false negatives all seem to be self-identitied by the authors of respective studied as likely being due to human error. It's a recurring joke in the orthopedic literature (father is an academic orthopedist. They do exist) that there is a cabal out there making people disavow ant reports of it ever failing to have perfect sensitivity.

I fully admit there is a chance that the people actually doing Auto ankle rules test, AKA us in the emergency room, don't realize that orthopedist are desperate for anyone to show that it has a false negative rate. So maybe we're the ones not reporting it when we should be. But in the orthopedic literature, if you say that you have even a single case of it any journal would be happy to publish you as the only ones that pop up are in studies using large numbers of people where there is one or two false negatives which are always on cases with very poor documentation where the study data collector had to make guesses as to if the case met or didn't meet the rules. Or where "can bear weight for two steps" shows up instead of four steps or whatever.

This is so off topic haha
 
Have there? Have there been?

There haven't. Or more accurately the very few cases of false negatives all seem to be self-identitied by the authors of respective studied as likely being due to human error. It's a recurring joke in the orthopedic literature (father is an academic orthopedist. They do exist) that there is a cabal out there making people disavow ant reports of it ever failing to have perfect sensitivity.

I fully admit there is a chance that the people actually doing Auto ankle rules test, AKA us in the emergency room, don't realize that orthopedist are desperate for anyone to show that it has a false negative rate. So maybe we're the ones not reporting it when we should be. But in the orthopedic literature, if you say that you have even a single case of it any journal would be happy to publish you as the only ones that pop up are in studies using large numbers of people where there is one or two false negatives which are always on cases with very poor documentation where the study data collector had to make guesses as to if the case met or didn't meet the rules. Or where "can bear weight for two steps" shows up instead of four steps or whatever.

This is so off topic haha
There have. Numerous.

 
Correct. I would not x-ray it the first time. Or the second time. And ironically the Ortho wouldn't x-ray it either. They'd get an MRI. Because it wouldn't be anything visible on XR as best as all our evidence suggests. I'd assume your make believe patient has a soft tissue injury only visible with MRI.
For the purposes of ED evaluations of ankle pain, sure, use ottawa ankle rules and avoid some unneeded x-rays. As far as decision rules go, it's one of the better ones. But its for people that need no follow up care of any kind. Anyone else that needs any follow up care at all, will end up with an x-ray somewhere on down the line.

But in reponse to your post above, Ortho always x-rays patient's joints. They don't skip x-rays and go to an MRI on all knee pain patients usually, and neither do I when I see someone with a joint pain problem. In fact, most Orthos have the machine in their office and have standing orders for their techs to serve an x-ray up for them on a silver platter, prior to even seeing the patient. -rays are so quick, cheap and easy to do, an an order of magnitude less expensive than advanced imaging. An x-ray is a great screen for ortho (or for me, who practices Pain). In the outpatient setting, you're not ordering an x-ray to see fractures necessarily, in a weight bearing person. But an x-ray still gives you valuable information, like an idea of how much joint space loss there is, i.e. presence and severity of arthritis. It'll show some unexpected findings, ie, xebras line bone tumors or other bony deformities. It'll show you a joint effusion, either chronic or from an acute cartilaginous injury. It's more than just, "Broke/not broke." And yes, you may pick up some non-displaced fractures in weight bearing people.

In the outpatient setting, we x-ray joints all the time, then do a joint steroid injection, for example, and if their symptoms improve with that, there's no need for an MRI. An MRI would be for pain that doesn't respond to conservative care or for patients with obvious cartilaginous injury that can't avoid surgery. Even for patients where you think there might be a minor miscus tear, for example, it still makes sense to start with an x-ray. Not every patient wants to commit to surgery right away, and if they're not at least potentially open to the idea, an MRI does nothing for Ortho, or for someone like me, who works in between primary care or the ED, and ortho.

My only advice: Be cautious with decision rules for life and limb threatening diagnoses. They all have flaws that you need to be aware of.
 
There have. Numerous.


You realize in the study you presented the false negative number (for ankle injury. I said it doesn't hold true for Ottawa foot rule) on 15,581 was.... 1.

so 99.9936 perfect sensitive.

My undergrad stats minor is kicking my ass. Not all of those 15,581 are applicable. That number included children (not applicable to the test) and injuries >48 hours old (also not applicable to the test from an academic POV). But the adults within 48 hours (which was still the majority but I am too lazy to bust open the article and find the number again) was 1 ever reported.

Edit: btw, my orthopedics reference above has more than 1 identified on it's meta-analysis. It's also from s few years after your article. It calls it 99.6%, but says most studies distance themselves from saying the random 1 false negative they tend to find is an actual thing and chalk it up to data collection error. Obviously nothing is perfect but of you're dealing with sensitivities well above 99.0%, false positive xr is more likely than true fracture.
 
Last edited:
You realize in the study you presented the false negative number (for ankle injury. I said it doesn't hold true for Ottawa foot rule) on 15,581 was.... 1.

so 99.9936 perfect sensitive.
Lol, I think you need to go back and actually read it again. Or I can assist you and just link the specific studies from the systematic review that demonstrate false negative cases by OAR.






...there are a couple more but I don't feel like posting them all.
 
Last edited:
Lol, I think you need to go back and actually read it again. Or I can assist you and just link the specific studies from the systematic review that demonstrate false negative cases by OAR.






...there are a couple more but I don't feel like posting them all.

Well I'll be a monkeys uncle.

Haha actually all of those are included in the 2011 orthopedics meta-analysis putting it at 99.4, you just fished out assume accidentally, the ones where it's not 100.0%. But yeah. I overstated. I meant if you can prove that there is a reliably measurable false negative rate they want it published. But many tens of thousands of data points shows it's well beyond a rate where discordance would be assumed to be the XR being wrong more often than the study. But there is definitely misses, though remarkably rare. Your first study shows as much with it's completely absurdly low miss rate.

But I wanted to give you credit for going the extra mile and also apologize for overstating what I actually meant in my zeal to make an annoying point to birdstrike
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top