临床医学图书管理员对住院患者治疗效果的影响。
The effect of a clinical medical librarian on in-patient care outcomes.
机构信息
Department of Medical Library Science, Cancer Prevention and Control, Feist-Weiller Cancer Center.
出版信息
J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Jul;101(3):185-91. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.007.
OBJECTIVE
The research sought to determine the effect of a clinical medical librarian (CML) on outcomes of in-patients on the internal medicine service.
METHODS
A prospective study was performed with two internal medicine in-patient teams. Team 1 included a CML who accompanied the team on daily rounds. The CML answered questions posed at the point of care immediately or in emails post-rounds. Patients on Team 2, which did not include a CML, as well as patients who did not require consultation by the CML on Team 1, served as the control population. Numerous clinical and library metrics were gathered on each question.
RESULTS
Patients on Team 1 who required an answer to a clinical question were more ill and had a longer length of stay, higher costs, and higher readmission rates compared to those in the control group. Using a matched pair analysis, we showed no difference in clinical outcomes between the intervention group and the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
This study is the largest attempt to prospectively measure changes in patient outcomes when physicians were accompanied by a CML on rounds. This approach may serve as a model for further studies to define when and how CMLs are most effective.
目的
本研究旨在确定临床医学图书馆员（CML）对内科住院患者治疗结局的影响。
方法
采用前瞻性研究方法，对两组内科住院患者进行研究。第一组团队配备了一名 CML，该 CML 随团队进行日常查房。CML 会在查房时当场或在查房后通过电子邮件回答提出的问题。第二组团队不包括 CML，以及第一组团队中不需要 CML 咨询的患者作为对照组。对每个问题收集了大量临床和图书馆指标。
结果
与对照组相比，第一组团队中需要临床问题答案的患者病情更重，住院时间更长、费用更高、再入院率更高。通过配对分析，我们发现干预组和对照组之间的临床结局没有差异。
结论
本研究是前瞻性测量当医生在查房时配备 CML 时患者治疗结局变化的最大尝试。这种方法可以作为进一步研究的模型，以确定 CML 何时以及如何最有效。
Zotero 插件