You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original articles
The sports concussion note: should SCAT become SCOAT?
  1. Jon Patricios1,
  2. Robert Collins1,
  3. Andrew Branfield2,
  4. Craig Roberts3,
  5. Ryan Kohler4
  1. 1Sports Concussion South Africa and Section Sports Medicine, Department of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
  2. 2Department of Clinical Research, Sports Concussion South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa
  3. 3South African Rugby Union and Discipline of Sports Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
  4. 4Sports Medicine Department, Australian Institute of Sport, Australian Sports Commission, Canberra, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jon Patricios, Sports Concussion South Africa and Section Sports Medicine, Department of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 1267, South Africa, Sports Concussion South Africa; jpat{at}mweb.co.za

Abstract

Sports concussion research and clinical guidelines have evolved rapidly. The most recent concussion consensus statement and guidelines (Zurich, 2008) provided clinicians with the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool version 2 (SCAT2) as a clinical template for the assessment of acute concussion. For the subsequent serial examinations required for the complete assessment of the concussed athlete, SCAT2 may be inadequate. This paper describes the experience and suggestions of South African sports physicians in evolving a more comprehensive clinical evaluation tool and record of patient care, the Sports Concussion Office Assessment Tool.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090386

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.