Is there life after evidence-based medicine?

Educational Collaboration Between Russian-Born US Physicians and Russian Oncology Trainees in Evidence-Based Medicine: The Higher School of Oncology

PURPOSE

The 2-year Russian oncology residency focuses on diagnosis and treatment of malignancies but lacks evidence-based medicine (EBM) and patient communication skills (PCS) training. To overcome these educational disparities, the 5-year national program, the Higher School of Oncology (HSO), involving Russian expatriate physicians trained in the United States was established.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted. Highly motivated oncology residents were enrolled in the program through the three-step selection process. US-trained Russian expatriate physicians acted as mentors. EBM skills were taught through weekly online journal clubs and clinical case presentations. PCS training included live seminars and simulations after journal clubs. EBM knowledge was assessed using Fresno test among newly enrolled and postgraduate year (PGY) 2-5 HSO residents. PCS were evaluated via simulation exam including two clinical scenarios (maximum score 100 each) among 17 PGY2 HSO residents and seven non-HSO trainees.

RESULTS

Overall, 54 residents were enrolled over 5 years (8-13 annually); four were released from the program. The mean age was 24 ± 1 years, and 56% were females. Median scores of Fresno test were significantly higher among PGY 2-4 HSO residents compared with newly enrolled participants: 111 (IQR, 71-128) versus 68 (IQR, 42-84), P = .042; moreover, performance correlated with year of program participation (r_s = 0.5; P < .0001). PCS assessment score was significantly higher among HSO residents than non-HSO trainees: 71 (IQR, 58-84) versus 15 (IQR, 10-30) for scenario number 1 (P < .0001) and 78 (IQR, 71-85) versus 22 (IQR, 4-58) for scenario number 2 (P = .005), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The involvement of Western-trained expatriates in remote education improves EBM and PCS among oncology trainees from their home country. This strategy can be useful in overcoming global medical education disparities in other specialties and in countries facing similar challenges.

Attitudes, skills and use of evidence-based practice among UK osteopaths: a national cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a clinical decision-making framework that supports quality improvement in healthcare. While osteopaths are key providers of musculoskeletal healthcare, the extent to which osteopaths engage in EBP is unclear. Thus, the aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate UK osteopaths' attitudes, skills and use of EBP, and perceived barriers and facilitators of EBP uptake.

METHODS

UK-registered osteopaths were invited to complete the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude and Utilisation Survey (EBASE) online.

RESULTS

Of the 5200 registered osteopaths in the UK, 9.9% (517/5200) responded to the invitation, and 7.2% (375/5200) completed the EBASE (< 20% incomplete answers). The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were largely similar to those of the UK osteopathy workforce. The osteopaths reported overall positive attitudes towards EBP, with most agreeing that EBP improves the quality of patient care (69.3%) and is necessary for osteopathy practice (76.5%). The majority reported moderate-level skills in EBP, and most (80.8%) were interested in improving these skills. Participating osteopaths typically engaged in EBP activities 1-5 times over the last month. Barriers to EBP uptake included a lack of time and clinical evidence in osteopathy. Main facilitators of EBP included having access to online databases, internet at work, full-text articles, and EBP education materials.

CONCLUSIONS

UK osteopaths were generally supportive of evidence-based practice, had moderate-level skills in EBP and engaged in EBP activities infrequently. The development of effective interventions that improve osteopaths' skills and the incorporation of EBP into clinical practice should be the focus of future research.

Evidence-based practice: SLTs under siege or opportunity for growth? The use and nature of research evidence in the profession

BACKGROUND

Speech and language therapists are encouraged to be evidence-based practitioners in contemporary clinical practice. This apparently signifies their commitment to 'good' practice. An examination of evidence-based practice (EBP) and its adoption in clinical practice is therefore warranted.

AIMS

This paper aims to explore EBP, specifically research evidence, as related to the field of speech and language therapy (SLT), using profession specific and cross-disciplinary examples. It asks the reader to consider whether research evidence contributes positively to SLT practice, or adds to the demands placed on clinicians?

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A review of the literature on the nature and use of research evidence in the field of speech and language therapy and related health professions was undertaken using multiple databases (Cochrane, Medline, Cinahal, BioMed, Trip, Dare) and the following up of references provided within texts and articles. This paper asks the reader to consider the topic from the perspective of the nature of research produced, the barriers perceived, and the use of research evidence by SLTs and the allied health professions.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

The uptake of research evidence in the profession is similar to other health professions and continues to be problematic. There are multiple reasons why this is so, originating from both the nature and use of research.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Research evidence is one of the pillars of EBP. Despite problems with the nature and use of such evidence, it has a positive contribution to make to clinical practice as it provides for a scientific touchstone. However, it may be that the speech and language therapist and not the research evidence is the primary pivot upon which scientific practice is based.

Balancing health care evidence and art to meet clinical needs: policymakers' perspectives

Rationale, aims and objectives Although many believe that evidence-based practice (EBP) has great potential, critics have identified limitations including a focus on randomized clinical trial (RCT) evidence to the exclusion of other evidence types and a disregard for the art of medicine. Others have argued, however, that proper application of EBP involves reasoned consideration of a wide variety of information; thus, the dichotomy between medical science and art may be false. We explore the views of executive-level policymakers from the Veterans Health Administration, a leader in the EBP movement, regarding what constitutes evidence and the relative importance of evidence versus practical needs when determining clinical policy. Method We conducted 26 semi-structured qualitative interviews and performed a content analysis. Results Although informants generally believed in the value of EBP and the role of RCTs within it, they also valued other types of evidence. Further, they had concerns that were sometimes antithetical with strict adherence to an evidence-based approach. These included practical concerns, fit with organizational values and with local circumstances, resources, political pressures and patient needs. They were especially concerned about how to address medical conditions that affect many individuals or high-risk populations that have no evidence-based treatment. Conclusion When possible, health care practice should be evidence-based. When this is not possible, health care providers must turn to the art of medicine by using consensus-based best practices. Further, it is important for policymakers and researchers to work in concert to develop EBPs that are practical and meet needs.

Harnessing experience: exploring the gap between evidence-based medicine and clinical practice

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

There is mounting evidence of a gap between Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) and physician clinical practice, in part because EBM is averaged global evidence gathered from exogenous populations which may not be relevant to local circumstances. Local endogenous evidence, collected in particular and 'real world' patient populations may be more relevant, convincing and timely for clinical practice. Evidence Farming (EF) is a concept to provide such local evidence through the systematic collection of clinical experience to guide more effective practice.

METHODS

We report on the findings of a pilot study of 29 individual and three focus group (n = 10) interviews exploring physicians' evaluations how they use multiple sources of information in clinical decision making and their thoughts on EF.

RESULTS

Physicians recognize a gap in translating EBM to practice. Physicians reported that when making clinical decisions, they more often rely on clinical experience, the opinions of colleagues and EBM summarizing electronic clinical resources rather than refer directly to EBM literature. Confidence in making decisions based on clinical experience increases over time, yet few physicians reported having systems for tracking their clinical experience in designing treatment plans and patient outcomes. Most physicians saw EF as a promising way to track experience, thereby making scientific evidence more relevant to their own clinical practices.

CONCLUSION

Clinical experience is relatively neglected by the EBM movement, but if that experience were systematically gathered through an approach such as EF, it would meet a need left unfulfilled by EBM.

Knowledge and use of evidence-based practice of GPs and hospital doctors

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Clinical effectiveness and evidence-based practice (EBP) are the cornerstone of modern day health care. Although many studies have explored attitudes and perceived knowledge of individual professions few have compared the factors between professional groups and in particular in the medical profession. We report a study comparing the views, knowledge and practice of hospital doctors with their general practitioner (GP) counterparts in terms of EBP and clinical effectiveness. In this way it was hoped to highlight not only any differences between these groups but also the needs of these groups and suggest some ways of fulfilling these.

METHODS

A postal questionnaire survey was completed by a random sample of 500 GPs and 500 hospital medics.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between the groups with the GPs rating their skill level as lower that their medical doctor counterparts. Similarly, GPs reported using EBP steps less frequently than hospital doctors. Barriers to implementing EBP differed between the groups with GPs reporting difficulty with accessing a library and making time available.

CONCLUSION

A number of differences between GPs and their hospital counterparts were recorded which highlights the difference in educational and policy approach required for greater uptake of EBP.

Integrating evidence into clinical practice: an alternative to evidence-based approaches

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has thus far failed to adequately account for the appropriate incorporation of other potential warrants for medical decision making into clinical practice. In particular, EBM has struggled with the value and integration of other kinds of medical knowledge, such as those derived from clinical experience or based on pathophysiologic rationale. The general priority given to empirical evidence derived from clinical research in all EBM approaches is not epistemically tenable. A casuistic alternative to EBM approaches recognizes that five distinct topics, 1) empirical evidence, 2) experiential evidence, 3) pathophysiologic rationale, 4) patient goals and values, and 5) system features are potentially relevant to any clinical decision. No single topic has a general priority over any other and the relative importance of a topic will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case. The skilled clinician must weigh these potentially conflicting evidentiary and non-evidentiary warrants for action, employing both practical and theoretical reasoning, in order to arrive at the best choice for an individual patient.

Exploring the continuum: medical information to effective clinical practice. Paper I: the translation of knowledge into clinical practice

This paper investigates the translation of medical information into clinical practice and the role of thoughtful dissent by exploring the influence of sociological factors on change, the impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM), and the role of industry. Changing practice related to hormone therapy for menopausal and post-menopausal women provides context for this discussion. Medical change involves diffusion of ideas to potential users and ongoing reconciliation of new information with old ideas; this process is influenced by sociological factors including values and experiences, interpersonal relationships and local context. While EBM has alerted doctors to the importance of high quality research and theoretically provides a tool for translating research into practice, there are important problems with its application: (1) it has resulted in a reductionist approach to research and illness; (2) there is a considerable gap between research findings and the complex environment of clinical practice; and (3) EBM has been appropriated by experts, thus corporately developed 'standard-of-care' documents have become instruments of external regulation, and EBM has ceased to be a tool in the hand of individual clinicians. In addition, industry impacts the translation of knowledge by significantly influencing academia, researchers, medical publications, consensus conferences, and practising doctors. While questioning doctrinaire practices or directives is a daunting prospect for individual clinicians, the translation of knowledge into practice and evolution of medical thought is dependent on the progressive role of thoughtful dissent.

Exploring the continuum: medical information to effective clinical practice. Paper II. Towards aetiology-centred clinical practice

Contemporary clinical practice increasingly functions within a disease management paradigm aimed at finding and implementing therapeutic interventions that demonstrate efficacy in clinical trials. Disease prevention, elucidation of illness aetiology and proactive health promotion have taken a back seat. Current clinical care often includes a 'fast-food' type of medical encounter, which frequently neglects disease causality. The medical community is presently challenged by unique administrative and professional adversities as well as undue commercial influence; these factors contribute to a lethargic response to escalating rates of chronic illness and to mainstream medicine's relative inattention to emerging research about disease aetiology. Individual medical practitioners and the medical establishment must strategically seek to advance patient health and maintain professional relevancy by a renewed emphasis on the following principles: patient-based clinical care, aetiology-centred medicine, and proactive health promotion.