Using LOINC to link an EMR to the pertinent paragraph in a structured reference knowledge base.
(9/44)
Intermountain Health Care has integrated the electronic medical record (EMR) with online information resources in order to create easy access to a knowledge base which practicing physicians can use at the point of care. When a user is reviewing problems/diagnosis, medications, or clinical laboratory test results, they can conveniently access a "pertinent paragraph" of reference literature that pertains to the clinical data in the EMR. Using terminology first coined by Cimino1, we call this application the "infobutton." We describe the architectural issues involved in linking our electronic medical record with a structured laboratory knowledge base. The application has been well received as noted by anecdotal comments made by physicians and usage of the application. (+info)
Clinical Evidence: a useful tool for promoting evidence-based practice?
(10/44)
BACKGROUND: Research has shown that many healthcare professionals have problems with guidelines as they would prefer to be given all relevant information relevant to decision-making rather than being told what they should do. This study assesses doctors' judgement of the validity, relevance, clarity and usability of the Italian translation of Clinical Evidence (CE) after its free distribution launched by the Italian Ministry of Health. METHODS: Opinions elicited using a standardised questionnaire delivered either by mail or during educational or professional meetings. RESULTS: Twenty percent (n = 1350) doctors participated the study. Most of them found CE's content valid, useful and relevant for their clinical practice, and said CE can foster communications among clinicians, particularly among GPs and specialists. Hospital doctors (63%) more often than GPs (48%) read the detailed presentation of individual chapters. Twenty-nine percent said CE brought changes in their clinical practice. Doctors appreciated CE's nature of an evidence-based information compendium and would have not preferred a collection of practice guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the pilot initiative launched by the Italian Ministry of Health seems to have been well received and to support the subsequent decision to make the Italian edition of Clinical Evidence concise available to all doctors practising in the country. Local implementation initiatives should be warranted to favour doctor's use of CE. (+info)
Housestaff use of medical references in ambulatory care.
(11/44)
We surveyed medical house officers at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center during their ambulatory rotations about their utilization of reference materials, assessing such factors as frequency, the mode of reference, and specific choice of resources. The collected data were significantly illustrative of the shift from paper-based resources to digital references. These findings confirm that availability should be of utmost priority when designing references for physicians in training. (+info)
Problem-based medical education: effect on library use.
(12/44)
Problem-based learning (PBL) is being adopted by U.S. medical schools. Information-seeking skills are central to the PBL curriculum, which emphasizes self-directed learning and the acquisition of problem-solving and lifelong learning skills. The purpose of this study is to begin exploring the relationship between the PBL curriculum and student information and library use. Medical students in PBL and conventional medical school curricula were compared on library and information-seeking competencies, behaviors, and perceptions. A survey was sent to second-year students in four medical schools, two schools with two curricular tracks (one PBL and one conventional), one PBL school, and one conventional school. The results showed certain significant differences (P less than 0.05) between PBL and conventional curriculum students, suggesting that PBL students were the more frequent library users, used information resources that supported the independent learning process, acquired information-seeking skills at an earlier stage in their medical education, and reported greater ease in using these skills. (+info)
Colon cancer survival rates with the new American Joint Committee on Cancer sixth edition staging.
(13/44)
BACKGROUND: The recently revised American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) sixth edition cancer staging system increased the stratification within colon cancer stages II and III defined by the AJCC fifth edition system. Using nationally representative Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, we compared survival rates associated with colon cancer stages defined according to both AJCC systems. METHODS: Using SEER data (from January 1, 1991, through December 31, 2000), we identified 119,363 patients with colon adenocarcinoma and included all patients in two analyses by stages defined by AJCC fifth and sixth edition systems. Tumors were stratified by SEER's "extent of disease" and "number of positive [lymph] nodes" coding schemes. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare overall and stage-specific 5-year survival. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Overall 5-year survival was 65.2%. According to stages defined by the AJCC fifth edition system, 5-year stage-specific survivals were 93.2% for stage I, 82.5% for stage II, 59.5% for stage III, and 8.1% for stage IV. According to stages defined by the AJCC sixth edition system, 5-year stage-specific survivals were 93.2% for stage I, 84.7% for stage IIa, 72.2% for stage IIb, 83.4% for stage IIIa, 64.1% for stage IIIb, 44.3% for stage IIIc, and 8.1% for stage IV. Under the sixth edition system, 5-year survival was statistically significantly better for patients with stage IIIa colon cancer (83.4%) than for patients with stage IIb disease (72.2%) (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The AJCC sixth edition system for colon cancer stratifies survival more distinctly than the fifth edition system by providing more substages. The association of stage IIIa colon cancer with statistically significantly better survival than stage IIb in the new system may reflect current clinical practice, in which stage III patients receive chemotherapy but stage II patients generally do not. (+info)
Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions.
(14/44)
OBJECTIVE: To identify the most frequent obstacles preventing physicians from answering their patient-care questions and the most requested improvements to clinical information resources. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of questions asked by 48 randomly selected generalist physicians during ambulatory care. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of reported obstacles to answering patient-care questions and recommendations from physicians for improving clinical information resources. RESULTS: The physicians asked 1,062 questions but pursued answers to only 585 (55%). The most commonly reported obstacle to the pursuit of an answer was the physician's doubt that an answer existed (52 questions, 11%). Among pursued questions, the most common obstacle was the failure of the selected resource to provide an answer (153 questions, 26%). During audiotaped interviews, physicians made 80 recommendations for improving clinical information resources. For example, they requested comprehensive resources that answer questions likely to occur in practice with emphasis on treatment and bottom-line advice. They asked for help in locating information quickly by using lists, tables, bolded subheadings, and algorithms and by avoiding lengthy, uninterrupted prose. CONCLUSION: Physicians do not seek answers to many of their questions, often suspecting a lack of usable information. When they do seek answers, they often cannot find the information they need. Clinical resource developers could use the recommendations made by practicing physicians to provide resources that are more useful for answering clinical questions. (+info)
How do primary care physicians seek answers to clinical questions? A literature review.
(15/44)
OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated the extent to which changes occurred between 1992 and 2005 in the ways that primary care physicians seek answers to clinical problems. What search strategies are used? How much time is spent on them? How do primary care physicians evaluate various search activities and information sources? Can a clinical librarian be useful to a primary care physician? METHODS: Twenty-one original research papers and three literature reviews were examined. No systematic reviews were identified. RESULTS: Primary care physicians seek answers to only a limited number of questions about which they first consult colleagues and paper sources. This practice has basically not changed over the years despite the enormous increase in and better accessibility to electronic information sources. One of the major obstacles is the time it takes to search for information. Other difficulties primary care physicians experience are related to formulating an appropriate search question, finding an optimal search strategy, and interpreting the evidence found. Some studies have been done on the supporting role of a clinical librarian in general practice. However, the effects on professional behavior of the primary care physician and on patient outcome have not been studied. A small group of primary care physicians prefer this support to developing their own search skills. DISCUSSION: Primary care physicians have several options for finding quick answers: building a question-and-answer database, consulting filtered information sources, or using an intermediary such as a clinical librarian. (+info)
Online medical books: their availability and an assessment of how health sciences libraries provide access on their public Websites.
(16/44)
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the number and topical range of available online medical books and to assess how health sciences libraries were providing access to these resources on their public Websites. METHOD: The collection-based evaluative technique of list checking was used to assess the number and topical range of online medical books of the six largest publishers. Publisher inventory lists were downloaded over a two-day period (May 16-17, 2004). Titles were counted and compared with the 2003 Brandon/Hill list. A sample of health sciences libraries was subsequently derived by consulting the 2004 "Top Medical Schools-Research" in U.S. News & World Report. Bibliographic and bibliothecal access methods were evaluated based on an inspection of the publicly available Websites of the sample libraries. RESULTS: Of 318 currently published online medical books, 151 (47%) were Brandon/Hill titles covering 42 of 59 Brandon/Hill topics (71%). These 151 titles represented 22% (N = 672) of the Brandon/Hill list, which further broke down as 52 minimal core, 41 initial purchase, and 58 other recommended Brandon/Hill titles. These numbers represented 50%, 28%, and 12%, respectively, of all Brandon/Hill titles corresponding to those categories. In terms of bibliographic access, 20 of 21 of sampled libraries created catalog records for their online medical books, 1 of which also provided analytical access at the chapter level, and none provided access at the chapter section level. Of the 21 libraries, 19 had library Website search engines that provided title-level access and 4 provided access at the chapter level and none that at the chapter section level. For bibliothecal access, 19 of 21 libraries provided title-level access to medical books, 8 of which provided classified and alphabetic arrangements, 1 provided a classified arrangement only, and 10 provided an alphabetic arrangement only. No library provided a bibliothecal arrangement for medical book chapters or chapter sections. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the number and topical range of online medical books is reaching a point where collection-level consideration is warranted to facilitate efficient use and to prevent the problem of split files. However, the results also show that few efforts are underway on the publicly available Websites of the surveyed health sciences libraries to provide the analytical access necessary to meet the structural needs of clinical information seekers. (+info)