In this study, we proposed a precautionary rule to guide our EPs and prevent CT misinterpretation. Through this study, we hope to contribute to the establishment of a safe and effective selleck chemicals emergency CT interpretation system for use in blunt trauma patients. Materials and methods Our emergency department (ED) is equipped with a multi-slice CT machine Selleck CCI-779 (from Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation) with 64 channels and is always in a state of standby for trauma patients. In blunt trauma, the EP in charge of the ED carries out a primary survey based on a standardized protocol, which actively employs whole body CT. EPs

interpret the CT scan at the time of imaging and record their image diagnoses in an electronic clinical chart. From there, the hospital procedure to definitive diagnosis based on CT is as follows. A radiologist interprets the emergency CT obtained in the ED within several hours, and this image report is uploaded to the electronic clinical chart. Every morning, the EPs discuss the radiologist’s report in a trauma conference and then arrive at a final CT diagnosis. To reduce CT misinterpretation by EPs, we established a simple precautionary rule, which advises EPs to interpret CT scans with particular care when a complicated injury is

suspected per the following criteria: 1) unstable physiological condition; 2) suspicion Selleckchem GNS-1480 of injuries in multiple regions of the body (e.g., brain injury plus abdominal injury); 3) high energy mechanism of injury; and 4) requirement

for rapid movement to other rooms for invasive treatment. If a patient meets at least one of these criteria, the EP should carefully interpret the CT scan. Namely, the EP should Farnesyltransferase undertake the following actions: 1) employment of enhanced CT for chest, abdomen, and pelvis; 2) re-interpretation of the images more than twice after short intervals; 3) changing the window levels according to the organs interpreted; 4) evaluation using not only an axial view but also a sagittal or coronal view when necessary; 5) use of a three-dimensional view to evaluate bone injuries; and 6) repetition of the CT after time has passed. Additionally, our rule specifies that the EP should request real-time interpretation by a radiologist in difficult cases per the following guidelines: 1) the patient’s physiological condition deteriorates in spite of treatment; 2) laboratory data show the development of anemia or metabolic acidosis in spite of treatment; or 3) unclear points remain in spite of re-interpretation or repetition of the CT. We posted this rule in the CT control room and the ED conference room, and we held a briefing session for our EPs introducing this new rule. We implemented the practice that the EP in charge of the ED must follow the rule. Our precautionary rule is shown in Table  1.