ArticleCureus2025
Assessing Compliance With Ottawa Foot and Ankle Rules in the Emergency Department: A Closed-Loop Quality Improvement Project.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Traumatic foot and ankle injuries are frequent presentations to the emergency department (ED). The Ottawa Foot and Ankle (F&A) Rules are to help clinicians in decision making whether an X-ray of the foot or ankle is justified. Methods A retrospective analysis of ankle and foot X-ray requests from a South London Hospital ED was performed. Consecutive requests for both foot and ankle X-rays were assessed chronologically until n=100 for each cohort. The clinical documentation of each ED clerking and the X-ray request clinical details were then compared to the Ottawa Rules of that respective request. The presence of a midfoot or ankle fracture was recorded. Several interventions were implemented to improve compliance; this included distributing the results of the first audit cycle and a handout containing the Ottawa F&A rules to ED staff. A teaching session for ED Junior Doctors on assessing, documenting, and requesting X-rays for foot and ankle injuries was delivered within the department. An identical second retrospective audit cycle for both ankle and foot X-rays was then completed three weeks after implementation of the above interventions. Results The compliance of Ottawa Foot Rules in documenting foot injuries significantly improved from 48% to 78% (p<.001). Foot X-ray request compliance significantly improved from 32% to 54% (p<.01). Documentation compliance of ankle injuries significantly improved from 74% to 87% (p<.05). Ankle injury X-ray request compliance improved from 43% to 57% (p<.05). Fracture rate did not significantly change; ankle fractures increased from 17% to 22% (p=.372), foot fracture rate remained 15% in both cycles. Significance was assessed using the Chi-square test throughout. Conclusion This two-cycle Quality Improvement Project demonstrated significant improvement in compliance with Ottawa F&A Rules for ED clerking documentation and X-ray request clinical details in a South London Hospital. Compliance with Ottawa F&A Rules has the potential to reduce costs, facilitate faster discharge, and reduce unnecessary radiation exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.