Comparison of evidence-based therapeutic intervention between community- and hospital-based primary care clinics

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the proportion of therapeutic interventions that is supported by scientific evidence between hospital-based and community-based primary care clinics. The study setting is a primary care clinic in university-affiliated tertiary hospital and community-based primary care clinic in a region in Seoul. A retrospective review of patients' medical records was done according to the primary diagnosis and treatment for 890 patients in community-based clinic and 307 in hospital-based clinic. The evidence for the intervention was searched for in Medline (1966-2001) and other evidence-based databases. The evidence was then classified as one of the three categories (i) evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs); (ii) convincing non-experimental evidence; and (iii) interventions without substantial evidence. In the hospital-based clinics, out of 356 primary diagnosis and treatment pairs, 59.6% were supported by evidence from at least one RCTs, and 19.4% were supported by convincing non-experimental evidence. In the community-based clinics, 47.1% out of 893 pairs and 10.5% fell into each category. As a result, the proportion of interventions in community settings that were based on evidence meeting our criteria was significantly lower than that of the hospital-based settings. To facilitate evidence-based practice, supportive activity should be focused on the primary care settings based on community where medical practices are less evidence-based.

Tools to assess Evidence-Based Practice behaviour among healthcare professionals

“…The classification by Kingston et al 90 was also frequently used. Three studies tested the validity of their tools: Kenny81 (also tested reliability); Nordin-Johansson96 and Straus 76…”

Health Care Transitions: A Review of Integrated, Integrative, and Integration Concepts

“…However, all procedures in medicine should also undergo the same scrutiny. 24 Yet, not all procedures and practices used in medicine are evidence based [25][26][27][28][29] ; so there seems to be a double standard. All health care practices should be given the same level of testing as well as tolerance.…”

Issues in access to end-of-life care in low-resource areas

“…Even as clinical research strains to keep pace with the rapid evolution of medical interventions and care delivery methods, improving and increasing the supply of knowledge with which to answer health care questions is a core aim of a learning health care system. The current research knowledge base provides limited support for answering important types of clinical questions, including those related to comparative effectiveness and longterm patient outcomes (British Medical Journal, 2011;Gill et al, 1996;IOM, 1985;Lee et al, 2005a;. This lack of knowledge is demonstrated by the fact that many technologies are not adequately evaluated before they see widespread clinical use.…”

“…Other examples of this approach include the National Bioterrorism Syndromic Surveillance Demonstration Program, which uses this distributed approach for surveillance of potential bioterrorism events and clusters of naturally occurring illness (Lazarus et al, 2006;Platt, 2010;Yih et al, 2004); the Shared Health Research Information Network, a federated query tool for three clinical data repositories created using the i2b2 open source software platform (Murphy et al, 2010;Weber et al, 2009); the Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel network (Behrman et al, 2011;Lee et al, 2005a); and the Pediatric EHR Data Sharing Network (PedsNET).…”