{"title":"探讨高级急诊医师在疑似创伤性脑损伤患者CT头部使用的临床决策规则中纳入临床生物标志物的观点","authors":"Alice Rogan, Peter Larsen","doi":"10.1111/1742-6723.70144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Clinical biomarkers are an objective test with the potential to improve CT head decision pathways by better risk stratifying patients and supporting Emergency department (ED) physician gestalt. Understanding variations in diagnostic approach, risk tolerance and the perceived need to upgrade guidelines and where will help inform further development of novel TBI pathways.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This study explored senior emergency physician perspectives regarding current clinical pathways and the potential use of clinical biomarkers as a rule-out test for intracranial pathology in head-injured patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>This descriptive qualitative design study uses data from 11 individual senior ED clinician interviews. Thematic analysis was then performed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The three main themes identified were safe practice and clinical decision-making, resources and logistics and challenges of changing practice. While most clinicians reported easy access to CT head scans, most also reported that waiting for CTs was associated with delays. The majority believed that at least some patient groups were over-investigated in this context. Potential benefits of a rule-out biomarker were viewed positively. However, risk tolerance for missed findings was low, ranging from 0.2% to 1%–2%. A strong evidence base demonstrating a biomarker performed with this precision was viewed by most as essential prior to its use.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Senior ED physicians viewed the potential inclusion of biomarkers in CT head guidelines favorably, particularly concerning decision support in low-risk head injuries. However, the lack of expert consensus or strong evidence demonstrating high diagnostic precision in comparable emergency care models limits their introduction.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11604,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Australasia","volume":"37 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1742-6723.70144","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Senior Emergency Physicians' Perspectives on the Inclusion of Clinical Biomarkers in Clinical Decision Rules for CT Head Use in Patients With Suspected Traumatic Brain Injury\",\"authors\":\"Alice Rogan, Peter Larsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1742-6723.70144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Clinical biomarkers are an objective test with the potential to improve CT head decision pathways by better risk stratifying patients and supporting Emergency department (ED) physician gestalt. Understanding variations in diagnostic approach, risk tolerance and the perceived need to upgrade guidelines and where will help inform further development of novel TBI pathways.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study explored senior emergency physician perspectives regarding current clinical pathways and the potential use of clinical biomarkers as a rule-out test for intracranial pathology in head-injured patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>This descriptive qualitative design study uses data from 11 individual senior ED clinician interviews. Thematic analysis was then performed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The three main themes identified were safe practice and clinical decision-making, resources and logistics and challenges of changing practice. While most clinicians reported easy access to CT head scans, most also reported that waiting for CTs was associated with delays. The majority believed that at least some patient groups were over-investigated in this context. Potential benefits of a rule-out biomarker were viewed positively. However, risk tolerance for missed findings was low, ranging from 0.2% to 1%–2%. A strong evidence base demonstrating a biomarker performed with this precision was viewed by most as essential prior to its use.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Senior ED physicians viewed the potential inclusion of biomarkers in CT head guidelines favorably, particularly concerning decision support in low-risk head injuries. However, the lack of expert consensus or strong evidence demonstrating high diagnostic precision in comparable emergency care models limits their introduction.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine Australasia\",\"volume\":\"37 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1742-6723.70144\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine Australasia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1742-6723.70144\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1742-6723.70144","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exploring Senior Emergency Physicians' Perspectives on the Inclusion of Clinical Biomarkers in Clinical Decision Rules for CT Head Use in Patients With Suspected Traumatic Brain Injury
Background
Clinical biomarkers are an objective test with the potential to improve CT head decision pathways by better risk stratifying patients and supporting Emergency department (ED) physician gestalt. Understanding variations in diagnostic approach, risk tolerance and the perceived need to upgrade guidelines and where will help inform further development of novel TBI pathways.
Objectives
This study explored senior emergency physician perspectives regarding current clinical pathways and the potential use of clinical biomarkers as a rule-out test for intracranial pathology in head-injured patients.
Method
This descriptive qualitative design study uses data from 11 individual senior ED clinician interviews. Thematic analysis was then performed.
Results
The three main themes identified were safe practice and clinical decision-making, resources and logistics and challenges of changing practice. While most clinicians reported easy access to CT head scans, most also reported that waiting for CTs was associated with delays. The majority believed that at least some patient groups were over-investigated in this context. Potential benefits of a rule-out biomarker were viewed positively. However, risk tolerance for missed findings was low, ranging from 0.2% to 1%–2%. A strong evidence base demonstrating a biomarker performed with this precision was viewed by most as essential prior to its use.
Conclusion
Senior ED physicians viewed the potential inclusion of biomarkers in CT head guidelines favorably, particularly concerning decision support in low-risk head injuries. However, the lack of expert consensus or strong evidence demonstrating high diagnostic precision in comparable emergency care models limits their introduction.
期刊介绍:
Emergency Medicine Australasia is the official journal of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and the Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine (ASEM), and publishes original articles dealing with all aspects of clinical practice, research, education and experiences in emergency medicine.
Original articles are published under the following sections: Original Research, Paediatric Emergency Medicine, Disaster Medicine, Education and Training, Ethics, International Emergency Medicine, Management and Quality, Medicolegal Matters, Prehospital Care, Public Health, Rural and Remote Care, Technology, Toxicology and Trauma. Accepted papers become the copyright of the journal.