Suppr超能文献

一项新的临床决策规则会被广泛应用吗?以加拿大颈椎规则为例。

Will a new clinical decision rule be widely used? The case of the Canadian C-spine rule.

作者信息

Brehaut Jamie C, Stiell Ian G, Graham Ian D

机构信息

Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Apr;13(4):413-20. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.11.080. Epub 2006 Mar 10.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The reasons why some clinical decision rules (CDRs) become widely used and others do not are not well understood. The authors wanted to know the following: 1) To what extent is widespread use of a new, relatively complex CDR an attainable goal? 2) How do physician perceptions of the new CDR compare with those of a widely used rule? 3) To what extent do physician subgroups differ in likelihood to use a new rule?

METHODS

A survey of 399 Canadian emergency physicians was conducted using Dillman's Tailored Design Method for postal surveys. The physicians were queried regarding the Canadian Cervical-Spine Rule (C-Spine Rule). Results were analyzed via frequency distributions, tests of association, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Response rate was 69.2% (262/376). Most respondents (83.6%) reported having already seen the Canadian C-Spine Rule, while 63.0% reported already using it. Of those who did not currently use the rule, 74.2% reported that they would consider using it in the future despite the fact that, compared with another widely used rule (the Ottawa Ankle Rules), the C-Spine Rule was rated as less easy to learn (z = 6.68, p < 0.001), remember (z = 7.37, p < 0.001), and use (z = 5.90, p < 0.001). Those who had never seen the rule before were older (chi2(2) = 5.10, p = 0.007) and more likely to work part-time (chi2(2) = 7.31, p = 0.026). The best predictors of whether the rule would be used was whether it had first been seen during training (odds ratio [OR], 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14 to 6.04), was perceived as an efficient use of time (OR, 4.44; 95% CI = 1.12 to 16.89), and was too much trouble to apply (OR, 0.25; 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Widespread use of a relatively complex rule is possible. Older and part-time physicians were less likely to have seen the Canadian C-Spine Rule but not less likely to use it once they had seen it. Targeting hard-to-reach subpopulations while stressing the safety and convenience of these rules is most likely to increase use of new CDRs.

摘要

目的

一些临床决策规则(CDR)被广泛应用而另一些却未被广泛应用的原因尚未完全明确。作者想了解以下几点:1)一个新的、相对复杂的CDR被广泛应用的目标在多大程度上可以实现?2)医生对新CDR的认知与对一个广泛应用的规则的认知相比如何?3)医生亚组在使用新规则的可能性上有多大差异?

方法

采用迪尔曼的邮政调查定制设计方法对399名加拿大急诊科医生进行了一项调查。询问医生关于加拿大颈椎规则(C - 脊柱规则)的情况。通过频率分布、关联性检验和逻辑回归分析结果。

结果

回复率为69.2%(262/376)。大多数受访者(83.6%)报告已经看过加拿大C - 脊柱规则,而63.0%报告已经在使用它。在那些目前未使用该规则的人中,74.2%报告他们未来会考虑使用它,尽管与另一个广泛使用的规则(渥太华踝关节规则)相比,C - 脊柱规则在学习(z = 6.68,p < 0.001)、记忆(z = 7.37,p < 0.001)和使用(z = 5.90,p < 0.001)方面被评为较难。那些以前从未看过该规则的人年龄较大(卡方(2)=5.10,p = 0.007)且更有可能兼职工作(卡方(2)=7.31,p = 0.026)。该规则是否会被使用的最佳预测因素是是否在培训期间首次看到它(优势比[OR],2.62;95%置信区间[CI]=1.14至6.04)、被认为能有效利用时间(OR,4.44;95% CI = 1.12至16.89)以及应用起来太麻烦(OR,0.25;95% CI = 0.08至0.77)。

结论

一个相对复杂的规则有可能被广泛应用。年龄较大和兼职的医生不太可能看过加拿大C - 脊柱规则,但一旦看过,使用它的可能性并不小。针对难以触及的亚群体,同时强调这些规则的安全性和便利性,最有可能增加新CDR的使用。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验