Answering Physicians' Clinical Questions: Obstacles and Potential Solutions

Ely, John; Osheroff, Jerome A.; Chambliss, M. Lee; Ebell, Mark H.; Rosenbaum, Marcy

doi:10.1197/jamia.m1608

Cited by 300 publications

(269 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

247

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They also allow identification of barriers encountered when attempting to address an outstanding question (Ely et al, 2002). Finally, where such questions are pursued to eventual resolution, they can yield a pragmatic glimpse of the relative value of the evidence base, and of specific study types (Glasziou, Vandenbroucke, & Chalmers, 2004), in answering real-life concerns of practitioners (Ely, Osheroff, Chambliss, Ebell, & Rosenbaum, 2005). Outside of this practical context, practitioner questions that are either unanswered or inadequately and incompletely answered provide a rich vein for the generation of future research priorities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Ask, Acquire, Appraise”: A Study of LIS Practitioners Participating in an EBLIP Continuing Education Course

Sutton¹,

Evans²

2013

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective -The project sought to examine the aspects of the question answering process in an evidence based library and information practice (EBLIP) context by presenting the questions asked, articles selected, and checklists used by an opportunistic sample of Australian and New Zealand library and information professionals from multiple library and information sectors participating in the "Evidence Based Library and Information Practice: Delivering Services That Shine" (EBLIP-Gloss) FOLIOz e-learning course.Methods -The researchers analyzed the "ask," "acquire," and "appraise" tasks completed by twenty-nine library and information professionals working in Australia or New Zealand. Questions were categorized by EBLIP domain, articles were examined to identify any comparisons, and checklists were collated by frequency.Results -Questions fell within each of the six EBLIP domains, with management being the most common. Timeliness, relevance, and accessibility were stronger determinants of article selection than rigour or study design. Relevance, domain, and applicability were the key determinants in selecting a checklist.Conclusion -This small-scale study exemplifies the EBLIP process for a self-selecting group of library and information professionals working in Australia and New Zealand. It provides a snapshot of the types of questions that library and information practitioners ask, and the types of articles and checklists found to be useful. Participants demonstrated a preference for literature and checklists originating from within the library and information science (LIS) field, reinforcing the imperative for LIS professionals to contribute to EBLIP research.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Ask, Acquire, Appraise”: A Study of LIS Practitioners Participating in an EBLIP Continuing Education Course

Sutton¹,

Evans²

2013

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies suggest that up to 5 clinical questions may arise during a single patient interaction [1]. Despite the number of clinical questions encountered, a large proportion of these questions remain unanswered, either due to lack of a formal search [2] or the inability to find an adequate answer despite an attempted search [3]. The correct use of online informational retrieval systems increases the accuracy of answers to clinical questions, even among experienced clinicians [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey from a Large Academic Medical Center

Homan¹,

Cimino²,

Peters³

et al. 2015

Appl Clin Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electronic health records, evidence-based medicine, information storage and retrieval, point of care technology, user-computer interface SummaryObjective: To better understand the literature searching preferences of clinical providers we conducted an institution-wide survey assessing the most preferred knowledge searching techniques. Materials and Methods: A survey regarding literature searching preferences was sent to 1862 unique clinical providers throughout Mayo Clinic. The survey consisted of 25 items asking respondents to select which clinical scenarios most often prompt literature searches as well as identify their most preferred knowledge resources. Results: A total of 450 completed surveys were returned and analyzed (24% response rate). 48% of respondents perform literature searches for more than half of their patient interactions with 91% of all searches occurring either before or within 3 hours of the patient interaction. When a search is performed 57% of respondents prefer synthesized information sources as compared to only 13% who prefer original research. 82% of knowledge searches are performed on a workstation or office computer while just 10% occur on a mobile device or at home. Conclusion:Providers in our survey demonstrate a need to answer clinical questions on a regular basis, especially in the diagnosis and therapy domains. Responses suggest that most of these searches occur using synthesized knowledge sources in the patient care setting within a very short time from the patient interaction.

show abstract

“…risks on adverse events, or specific outcomes such as functional status. Searching for information on preferences for treatment outcomes in the medical literature, for instance using PubMed, can be time-consuming (20,21) and may be problematic since patient preferences are elicited in many ways (21,22). Heterogeneity in methods used and reporting styles makes it more difficult to retrieve relevant literature (23).…”

Section: Patient Preferences For Treatment Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%