Knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding cervical collars in adult trauma patients amongst practitioners at three hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Abstract

Background

The use of cervical collars in adult patients with possible injuries to the cervical spine has been an accepted standard of care for many years, despite the absence of evidence for the efficacy of these devices in preventing unwanted movement and harm. Changes to the terminology and recommendations of major trauma guidelines have been made but are limited by low quality evidence. In this context, little is known about what practitioners know, believe, and do, when managing the cervical spine of trauma patients.

Methods

In this quantitative, observational, descriptive, cross-sectional survey a specifically designed questionnaire was used to collect data on the knowledge, attitude, and practices of practitioners managing adult trauma patients regarding cervical collars at three hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Results

A total of 128 completed questionnaires were collected, captured, and analysed. Participants with the additional qualification of ATLS and DipPEC had a mean knowledge score of 8.1 (SD=1.70), compared to those with no additional qualification of 4.5 (SD=1.9) (p<0.001). Participants in the Emergency Department (ED) attained a mean knowledge score of 7.1 (SD=2.2) followed by Surgery (Mean=6, SD=2.0), Orthopaedics (Mean=5.5, SD=1.7) and ICU/Anaesthetics (Mean=4.4, SD=1.8), p<0.001. Head blocks only were most frequently used by 97.4 % of ED, 55.6 % of Surgery, 3.8 % Orthopaedic and 22.2 % ICU/Anaesthetics participants (p<0.001).

Conclusion

The knowledge of management principles of cervical spine injuries was influenced by the department in which practitioners worked, the frequency that they managed patients with suspected injuries and additional courses. Head blocks were the most frequently used spinal protection device in all three hospitals. Most participants would be open to a change in practice if new guidelines were recommended. Further research is needed to determine the optimal management of patients with suspected cervical spine injuries and the role of motion restriction devices in limiting movement of the injured spine.