Mulvaney Shelagh A, Bickman Leonard, Giuse Nunzia B, Lambert E Warren, Sathe Nila A, Jerome Rebecca N
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, School of Nursing, 461 21 Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37240, USA.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Mar-Apr;15(2):203-11. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2461. Epub 2007 Dec 20.
To determine the effectiveness of providing synthesized research evidence to inform patient care practices via an evidence based informatics program, the Clinical Informatics Consult Service (CICS).
Consults were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: CICS Provided, in which clinicians received synthesized information from the biomedical literature addressing the consult question or No CICS Provided, in which no information was provided.
Outcomes were measured via online post-consult forms that assessed consult purpose, actual and potential impact, satisfaction, time spent searching, and other variables.
Two hundred twenty six consults were made during the 19-month study period. Clinicians primarily made requests in order to update themselves (65.0%, 147/226) and were satisfied with the service results (Mean 4.52 of possible 5.0, SD 0.94). Intention to treat (ITT) analyses showed that consults in the CICS Provided condition had a greater actual and potential impact on clinical actions and clinician satisfaction than No CICS consults. Evidence provided by the service primarily impacted the use of a new or different treatment (OR 8.19 95% CI 1.04-64.00). Reasons for no or little impact included a lack of evidence addressing the issue or that the clinician was already implementing the practices indicated by the evidence.
Clinical decision-making, particularly regarding treatment issues, was statistically significantly impacted by the service. Programs such as the CICS may provide an effective tool for facilitating the integration of research evidence into the management of complex patient care and may foster clinicians' engagement with the biomedical literature.
通过循证信息学项目临床信息咨询服务(CICS)来确定提供综合研究证据以指导患者护理实践的有效性。
咨询被随机分配到两种情况之一:提供CICS,即临床医生收到来自生物医学文献中针对咨询问题的综合信息;或不提供CICS,即不提供任何信息。
通过咨询后的在线表格来测量结果,该表格评估咨询目的、实际和潜在影响、满意度、搜索花费的时间以及其他变量。
在19个月的研究期间共进行了226次咨询。临床医生提出咨询主要是为了自我更新(65.0%,147/226),并且对服务结果感到满意(平均分为4.52分,满分5.0分,标准差为0.94)。意向性分析(ITT)表明,与未接受CICS咨询相比,接受CICS咨询的情况对临床行动和临床医生满意度具有更大的实际和潜在影响。该服务提供的证据主要影响了新治疗方法或不同治疗方法的使用(比值比8.19,95%置信区间1.04 - 64.00)。没有影响或影响较小的原因包括缺乏针对该问题的证据,或者临床医生已经在实施证据所表明的实践。
该服务对临床决策,尤其是关于治疗问题的决策,在统计学上有显著影响。像CICS这样的项目可能为促进将研究证据整合到复杂患者护理管理中提供一个有效工具,并可能促进临床医生参与生物医学文献研究。