Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 37, Issue 3 , Pages 259-266, March 2001

Awareness and use of the ottawa ankle and knee rules in 5 countries: Can publication alone be enough to change practice?☆☆

Presented at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine annual meeting, Boston, MA, May 1999.

From the Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa*; the Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa; the Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Loeb Health Research Institute§; Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa; the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa; Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Research Institute,# Ottawa, Canada; Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth,** and Southampton General Hospital, Southampton,‡‡ United Kingdom; Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Département de Santé Publique–Qualité et Gestion des Risques, Paris, France§§; Hopital de Poissy, Poissy, France∥∥; the Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hospital Aranzazu,¶¶ and the Emergency Service, Hospital Gipuzkoa, CHD,## San Sebastian, Spain

Received 30 November 1999; received in revised form 28 March 2000, 13 July 2000 and 22 September 2000; accepted 24 October 2000.

Abstract 

Study Objectives: We evaluate the international diffusion of the Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules and determine emergency physicians’ attitudes toward clinical decision rules in general. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered mail survey of random samples of 500 members each of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine, Spanish Society for Emergency Medicine, and all members (n=1,350) of the French Speaking Society of Emergency Physicians, France. Main outcome measures were awareness of the Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules, reported use of these rules, and attitudes toward clinical decision rules in general. Results: A total of 1,769 (57%) emergency physicians responded, with country-specific response rates between 49% (United States and France) and 79% (Canada). More than 69% of physicians in all countries, except Spain, were aware of the Ottawa Ankle Rules. Use of the Ottawa Ankle Rules differed by country with more than 70% of all responding Canadian and United Kingdom physicians reporting frequent use of the rules compared with fewer than one third of US, French, and Spanish physicians. The Ottawa Knee Rule was less well known and less used by physicians in all countries. Most physicians in all countries viewed decision rules as intended to improve the quality of health care (>78%), a convenient source of advice (>67%), and good educational tools (>61%). Of all physicians, those from the United States held the least positive attitudes toward decision rules. Conclusion: This constitutes the largest international survey of emergency physicians’ attitudes toward and use of clinical decision rules. Striking differences were apparent among countries with regard to knowledge and use of decision rules. Despite similar awareness in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, US physicians appeared much less likely to use the Ottawa Ankle Rules. Future research should investigate factors leading to differences in rates of diffusion among countries and address strategies to enhance dissemination and implementation of such rules in the emergency department. [Graham ID, Stiell IG, Laupacis A, McAuley L, Howell M, Clancy M, Durieux P, Simon N, Emparanza JI, Aginaga JR, O’Connor A, Wells G. Awareness and use of the Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules in 5 countries: can publication alone be enough to change practice? Ann Emerg Med. March 2001;37:259-266.]

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported by the Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC GR-13304), the Faculty of Accident and Emergency Medicine, the French Speaking Society of Emergency Medicine, and the Glaxo Company (Spain). Drs. Graham and O’Connor are Ontario Ministry of Health Career Scientists. Drs. Stiell and Laupacis are MRC Career Scientists.

☆☆ Address for reprints: Ian D. Graham, PhD, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Loeb Health Research Institute (C410) 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4E9; 613-798-5555, ext 18273, fax 613-761-9452; E-mail igraham@lri.ca .

PII: S0196-0644(01)36642-8

doi:10.1067/mem.2001.113506

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 37, Issue 3 , Pages 259-266, March 2001