Sackett D L, Straus S E
Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, England.
JAMA. 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1336-8. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.15.1336.
Physicians need easy access to evidence for clinical decisions while they care for patients but, to our knowledge, no investigators have assessed use of evidence during rounds with house staff.
To determine if it was feasible to find and apply evidence during clinical rounds, using an "evidence cart" that contains multiple sources of evidence and the means for projecting and printing them.
Descriptive feasibility study of use of evidence during 1 month (April 1997) and anonymous questionnaire (May 1997).
General medicine inpatient service.
Medical students, house staff, fellows, and attending consultant.
Evidence cart that included 2 secondary sources developed by the department (critically appraised topics [CATs] and Redbook), Best Evidence, JAMA Rational Clinical Examination series, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, a physical examination textbook, a radiology anatomy textbook, and a Simulscope, which allows several people to listen simultaneously to the same signs on physical examination.
Number of times sources were used, type of sources searched and success of searches, time needed to search, and whether the search affected patient care.
The evidence cart was used 98 times, but could not be taken on bedside rounds because of its bulk; hard copies of several sources were taken instead. When the evidence cart was used during team rounds and student rounds, some sources could be accessed quickly enough (10.2-25.4 seconds) to be practical on our service. Of 98 searches, 79 (81%) sought evidence that could affect diagnostic and/or treatment decisions. Seventy-one (90%) of 79 searches regarding patient management were successful, and when assessed from the perspective of the most junior team members responsible for each patient's evaluation and management, 37 (52%) of the 71 successful searches confirmed their current or tentative diagnostic or treatment plans, 18 (25%) led to a new diagnostic skill, an additional test, or a new management decision, and 16 (23%) corrected a previous clinical skill, diagnostic test, or treatment. When the cart was removed, the perceived need for evidence rose sharply, but a search for it was carried out only 12% of the time (5 searches performed out of the 41 times evidence was needed).
Making evidence quickly available to clinicians on a busy medical inpatient service using an evidence cart increased the extent to which evidence was sought and incorporated into patient care decisions.
医生在照顾患者时需要方便地获取临床决策所需的证据,但据我们所知,尚无研究人员评估住院医师查房期间证据的使用情况。
使用一个装有多种证据来源以及投影和打印设备的“证据推车”,确定在临床查房期间查找和应用证据是否可行。
1997年4月对证据使用情况进行描述性可行性研究,并于1997年5月进行匿名问卷调查。
普通内科住院病房。
医学生、住院医师、研究员和主治顾问医生。
证据推车,其中包括该科室编制的2种二级资料来源(经严格评价的主题[CATs]和《红宝书》)、最佳证据、《美国医学会杂志》合理临床检查系列、Cochrane图书馆、医学文献数据库、一本体格检查教科书、一本放射解剖学教科书以及一个模拟听诊器,可使多人同时听到体格检查中的相同体征。
资料来源的使用次数、所检索资料来源的类型及检索成功率、检索所需时间,以及检索是否影响患者护理。
证据推车被使用了98次,但因其体积庞大无法推到床边查房,而是取用了几种资料来源的硬拷贝。在团队查房和学生查房期间使用证据推车时,一些资料来源的获取速度足够快(10.2 - 25.4秒),在我们的病房实际可行。在98次检索中,79次(81%)是为了寻找可能影响诊断和/或治疗决策的证据。在79次有关患者管理的检索中,71次(90%)成功。从负责每位患者评估和管理的最年轻团队成员的角度评估,71次成功检索中有37次(52%)证实了他们当前或初步的诊断或治疗计划,18次(25%)带来了新的诊断技能、额外的检查或新的管理决策,16次(23%)纠正了之前的临床技能、诊断检查或治疗。当证据推车被撤下后,对证据的感知需求急剧上升,但仅在12%的情况下进行了证据检索(在需要证据的41次中有5次进行了检索)。
在繁忙的内科住院病房使用证据推车,让临床医生能快速获取证据,增加了查找证据并将其纳入患者护理决策的程度。