Matchar D B, Samsa G P
Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, Duke University, USA.
Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1999 Oct;25(10):522-8. doi: 10.1016/s1070-3241(16)30466-7.
In this article two related questions are considered: (1) Why isn't evidence-based medicine (EBM) more consistently implemented? and (2) Using the EBM paradigm, by what mechanism can we link evidence reports to concrete practice improvement activities?
To motivate a systematic analysis, answers to these questions are framed within the context of a general conceptual model for practice improvement, using as an example the application of this general model to the question of improving anticoagulation.
The potential role of evidence reports is quite broad and to be most effective, they should (1) be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy for practice improvement and (2) be designed with their customers in mind. A system-based method for using the information from evidence reports involves ultimately suggesting specific practice improvement strategies in which the strategies are defined in terms of (1) a set of functional specifications and (2) a toolbox of implementation options. Such an approach brings to bear the specialized expertise and generalized fund of scientific knowledge used to produce the evidence report, but does so in a way that facilitates local tailoring. That is, while information synthesis should be global, implementation must be local.
本文探讨了两个相关问题:(1)为何循证医学(EBM)未能更持续地得到实施?(2)运用循证医学范式,我们通过何种机制能将证据报告与具体的实践改进活动联系起来?
为推动系统性分析,针对这些问题的答案构建于实践改进的通用概念模型框架内,以该通用模型应用于改善抗凝问题为例进行阐述。
证据报告的潜在作用颇为广泛,为达最佳效果,它们应(1)被视作实践改进综合策略的一部分,且(2)在设计时要考虑其受众。基于系统的利用证据报告信息的方法最终涉及提出具体的实践改进策略,其中这些策略依据(1)一组功能规范以及(2)实施选项工具箱来界定。这种方法借助了用于生成证据报告的专业知识和科学知识的通用储备,但以一种便于因地制宜调整的方式来运用。也就是说,虽然信息综合应具有全局性,但实施必须本地化。