Assessing the impact of bibliographical support on the quality of medical care in patients admitted to an internal medicine service: a prospective clinical, open, randomised two-arm parallel study

Developing an intervention around referral and admissions to intensive care: a mixed-methods study

Background

Intensive care treatment can be life-saving, but it is invasive and distressing for patients receiving it and it is not always successful. Deciding whether or not a patient will benefit from intensive care is a difficult clinical and ethical challenge.

Objectives

To explore the decision-making process for referral and admission to the intensive care unit and to develop and test an intervention to improve it.

Methods

A mixed-methods study comprising (1) two systematic reviews investigating the factors associated with decisions to admit patients to the intensive care unit and the experiences of clinicians, patients and families; (2) observation of decisions and interviews with intensive care unit doctors, referring doctors, and patients and families in six NHS trusts in the Midlands, UK; (3) a choice experiment survey distributed to UK intensive care unit consultants and critical care outreach nurses, eliciting their preferences for factors used in decision-making for intensive care unit admission; (4) development of a decision-support intervention informed by the previous work streams, including an ethical framework for decision-making and supporting referral and decision-support forms and patient and family information leaflets. Implementation feasibility was tested in three NHS trusts; (5) development and testing of a tool to evaluate the ethical quality of decision-making related to intensive care unit admission, based on the assessment of patient records. The tool was tested for inter-rater and intersite reliability in 120 patient records.

Results

Influences on decision-making identified in the systematic review and ethnographic study included age, presence of chronic illness, functional status, presence of a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order, referring specialty, referrer seniority and intensive care unit bed availability. Intensive care unit doctors used a gestalt assessment of the patient when making decisions. The choice experiment showed that age was the most important factor in consultants’ and critical care outreach nurses’ preferences for admission. The ethnographic study illuminated the complexity of the decision-making process, and the importance of interprofessional relationships and good communication between teams and with patients and families. Doctors found it difficult to articulate and balance the benefits and burdens of intensive care unit treatment for a patient. There was low uptake of the decision-support intervention, although doctors who used it noted that it improved articulation of reasons for decisions and communication with patients.

Limitations

Limitations existed in each of the component studies; for example, we had difficulty recruiting patients and families in our qualitative work. However, the project benefited from a mixed-method approach that mitigated the potential limitations of the component studies.

Conclusions

Decision-making surrounding referral and admission to the intensive care unit is complex. This study has provided evidence and resources to help clinicians and organisations aiming to improve the decision-making for and, ultimately, the care of critically ill patients.

Future work

Further research is needed into decision-making practices, particularly in how best to engage with patients and families during the decision process. The development and evaluation of training for clinicians involved in these decisions should be a priority for future work.

Study registration

The systematic reviews of this study are registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039054, CRD42015019711 and CRD42015019714.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme. The University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates fund the Health Economics Research Unit.

Answering medical questions at the point of care: a cross-sectional study comparing rapid decisions based on PubMed and Epistemonikos searches with evidence-based recommendations developed with the GRADE approach

INTRODUCTION

Using the best current evidence to inform clinical decisions remains a challenge for clinicians. Given the scarcity of trustworthy clinical practice guidelines providing recommendations to answer clinicians' daily questions, clinical decision support systems (ie, assistance in question identification and answering) emerge as an attractive alternative. The trustworthiness of the recommendations achieved by such systems is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the trustworthiness of a question identification and answering system that delivers timely recommendations.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

We compared the responses to 100 clinical questions related to inpatient management provided by two rapid response methods with 'Gold Standard' recommendations. One of the rapid methods was based on PubMed and the other on Epistemonikos database. We defined our 'Gold Standard' as trustworthy published evidence-based recommendations or, when unavailable, recommendations developed locally by a panel of six clinicians following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Recommendations provided by the rapid strategies were classified as potentially misleading or reasonable. We also determined if the potentially misleading recommendations could have been avoided with the appropriate implementation of searching and evidence summary tools.

RESULTS

We were able to answer all of the 100 questions with both rapid methods. Of the 200 recommendations obtained, 6.5% (95% CI 3% to 9.9%) were classified as potentially misleading and 93.5% (95% CI 90% to 96.9%) as reasonable. 6 of the 13 potentially misleading recommendations could have been avoided by the appropriate usage of the Epistemonikos matrix tool or by constructing summary of findings tables. No significant differences were observed between the evaluated rapid response methods.

CONCLUSION

A question answering service based on the GRADE approach proved feasible to implement and provided appropriate guidance for most identified questions. Our approach could help stakeholders in charge of managing resources and defining policies for patient care to improve evidence-based decision-making in an efficient and feasible manner.

Get the Diagnosis: an evidence-based medicine collaborative Wiki for diagnostic test accuracy

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread calls for its use, there are challenges to the implementation of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in clinical practice.

METHODS

In response to the challenges of finding timely, pertinent information on diagnostic test accuracy, we developed an online, crowd-sourced Wiki on diagnostic test accuracy called Get the Diagnosis (GTD, http://www.getthediagnosis.org).

RESULTS

Since its launch in November 2008 till October 2015, GTD has accumulated information on 300 diagnoses, with 1617 total diagnostic entries. There are a total of 1097 unique diagnostic tests with a mean of 5.4 tests (range 0-38) per diagnosis. 73% of entries (1182 of 1617) have an associated sensitivity and specificity and 89% of entries (1432 of 1617) have associated peer-reviewed literature citations. Altogether, GTD contains 474 unique literature citations. For a sample of three diagnoses, the search precision (percentage of relevant results in the first 30 entries) in GTD was 100% as compared with a range of 13.3%-63.3% for PubMed and between 6.7% and 76.7% for Google Scholar.

CONCLUSION

GTD offers a fast, precise and efficient way to look up diagnostic test accuracy. On three selected examples, GTD had a greater precision rate compared with PubMed and Google Scholar in identifying diagnostic test information. GTD is a free resource that complements other currently available resources.

If the results of an article are noteworthy, read the entire article; do not rely on the abstract alone

Clinicians typically update their knowledge by reading articles on the Internet. Easy access to the articles' abstracts and a lack of time to access other information sources creates a risk that therapeutic or diagnostic decisions will be made after reading just the abstracts. Occasionally, however, the abstracts of articles from clinical trials that have not obtained statistically significant differences in the primary study endpoint have reported other positive results, for example, of a secondary endpoint or a subgroup analysis. The article, however, correctly reports all results, including those of the primary endpoint. In the abstract, the safety information of the experimental treatment is usually deficient. The whole article should be read if a clinical decision is to be made.