Consider this Case Study

• Previous message: Consider this Case Study
• Next message: Consider this Case Study
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Rick,
I misunderstood nothing. The post mentioned "mechanism" as one reason
not to clinically clear. This is not a reason. The distracting injury
is.

JM 
  
John L. Meade, MD, FACEP 
Emergency Medicine Specialist
Emerald Healthcare Group, P.A. 
http://www.statdoc.com/  
 
When you dream in color, it's a pigment of your imagination.




 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: trauma-list-admin@trauma.org [mailto:trauma-list-admin@trauma.org]
On Behalf Of DocRickFry@aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:06
To: trauma-list@trauma.org
Subject: Re: Consider this Case Study

In a message dated Fri, 21 Jun 2002 9:35:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jmeade@statdoc.com writes:

> Perhaps "field criteria" have been published that are different from
the ED criteria for clinical clearance of cervical spines. The published
ED criteria do not mention mechanism of injury as a criterion. There are
5 criteria that must be met to clinically clear: no midline cervical
tenderness, no focal neurologic deficit, normal alertness, no
intoxication, and 
> no painful, distracting injury.

John--
You seem to have misunderstood the post to which you
responded--mechanism of injury was not the issue--the point was that the
distracting pain of the arm fracture is a clear criterion (as you go on
to confirm yourself)preventing C-spine clearance on clinical grounds, in
the field OR in the ER
ERF

--
trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG
To change your settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html

• Previous message: Consider this Case Study
• Next message: Consider this Case Study
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]