Smith Kristofer L, Ashburn Sarah, Aminawung Jenerius A, Mann Micah, Ross Joseph S
Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, P,O, Box 208093, 06520 New Haven, CT, USA.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Apr 17;14:176. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-176.
Physicians often select clinical management strategies not strongly supported by evidence or guidelines. Our objective was to examine the likelihood of selecting, and rationale for pursuing, clinical management strategies with more or less guideline support among physicians using clinical vignettes of eight common medical admissions.
We conducted a cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes of attending physicians and housestaff at one internal medicine program in New York City. Each clinical vignette included a brief clinical scenario and a varying number of clinical management strategies: diagnostic tests, consultations, and treatments, some of which had strong evidence or guideline support (Level 1 strategies) while others had limited evidence or guideline support (Level 3 strategies). Likelihood of selecting a given management strategy was assessed using Likert scales and multiple response options were used to indicate rationale(s) for selections.
Our sample included 79 physicians; 68 (86%) were younger than 40 years of age, 34 (43%) were female. There were 31 attending physicians (39%) and 48 housestaff (61%) and 39 (49%) had or planned to have primarily primary care internal medicine clinical responsibilities. Overall, physicians were more likely to select Level 1 strategies "always" or "most of the time" when compared with Level 3 strategies (82% vs. 43%; p < 0.001), with wide variation across the eight medical admissions. There were no differences between attending and housestaff physician likelihood of selecting Level 3 strategies (47% vs. 45%, p = 0.36). Supportive evidence and local practice patterns were the two most common rationales behind selections; supportive evidence was cited as the most common rationale for selecting Level 1 when compared with Level 3 strategies (63% versus 30%; p < 0.001), whereas ruling out other severe conditions was cited most often for Level 3 strategies.
For eight common medical admissions, physicians selected more than 80% of management strategies with strong evidence or guideline support, but also selected more than 40% of strategies for which there was limited evidence or guideline support. The promotion of evidence-based care, including the avoidance of care that is not strongly supported by evidence or guidelines, may require better evidence dissemination and educational outreach to physicians.
医生常常选择那些缺乏充分证据或指南支持的临床管理策略。我们的目标是通过八个常见内科住院病例的临床 vignette,研究医生选择有或没有指南支持的临床管理策略的可能性及背后的理由。
我们在纽约市的一个内科项目中,针对主治医生和住院医师开展了一项横断面调查,采用临床 vignette。每个临床 vignette 包含一个简短的临床病例及不同数量的临床管理策略:诊断检查、会诊和治疗,其中一些有充分的证据或指南支持(1 级策略),而其他一些则证据或指南支持有限(3 级策略)。使用李克特量表评估选择特定管理策略的可能性,并使用多项选择来表明选择的理由。
我们的样本包括 79 名医生;68 名(86%)年龄小于 40 岁,34 名(43%)为女性。有 31 名主治医生(39%)和 48 名住院医师(61%),39 名(49%)有或计划主要承担内科初级保健临床职责。总体而言,与 3 级策略相比,医生更有可能“总是”或“大多数时候”选择 1 级策略(82%对 43%;p < 0.001),在八个内科住院病例中差异很大。主治医生和住院医师选择 3 级策略的可能性没有差异(47%对 45%,p = 0.36)。支持性证据和当地实践模式是选择背后最常见的两个理由;与 3级策略相比,支持性证据被认为是选择 1级策略最常见的理由(63%对 30%;p <