Attitudes and other barriers to the utilization of clinical research findings by American physicians: A systematic review

Background: The Institute of Medicine estimates that only a maximum of 25% of clinical research findings are incorporated into practice by physicians. To improve clinical practice, efforts have been made to promote evidence-based medicine and the use of clinical guidelines. Despite these efforts, the gap between research and clinical practice remains wide.^ Objective: To systematically review the literature describing the factors which influence the use of clinical research recommendations by American physicians.^ Hypothesis: Barriers exist in the application of clinical research into clinical practice, and are multifactorial. The establishment of the Clinical and Translational Awards (CTSA; special federal grants awarded to selected institutions to support clinical and translational research) has reduced the effect of these barriers and improved the process of clinical research translation into practice among American physicians.^ Aims: Identify barriers and facilitators of the use of research findings in clinical practice by American physicians. Contrast studies published six years before and after the creation of the CTSA.^ Methods: The sources of data include published literature from Medline, PubMed and PsycINFO. Selected studies must be qualitative, a survey of American clinicians, based on evidence-based medicine practice, clinical guidelines or treatment pathways. Systematic reviews and reports were excluded, as well as studies with less than 100 respondents.^ Results: In total, 1036 abstracts were reviewed; 115 full text potential articles were identified and reviewed, and a total of 31 studies met all criteria for inclusion in the final review.^ Conclusions: The barriers against the application of clinical research findings, in the forms of clinical guidelines, evidence-based medicine guides and clinical pathways, can be divided broadly into physician barriers, practice/system barriers and patient barriers. Physician barriers are the most common barriers, especially the lack of familiarity with guidelines and the lack of time. Of the factors which improve the use of research based guidelines, physician factors such as younger age, lower duration of clinical practice, specialty training, and practice in large group Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) settings with fewer patients seen were the most commonly cited.^

The normal range of the leukocyte count: Implications for surveillance of occupational and environmental exposure and the practice of preventive medicine

Leukopenia, the leukocyte count, and prognosis of disease are interrelated; a systematic search of the literature was undertaken to ascertain the strength of the evidence. One hundred seventy-one studies were found from 1953 onward pertaining to the predictive capabilities of the leukocyte count. Of those studies, 42 met inclusion criteria. An estimated range of 2,200cells/μL to 7,000cells/μL was determined as that which indicates good prognosis in disease and indicates the least amount of risk to an individual overall. Tables of the evidence are included indicating the disparate populations examined and the possible degree of association. ^

Comparison of cost and outcome of care in patients with low back pain who are managed by physicians or physical therapists in private practice

The purpose of this study was to determine if there were differences in the cost and outcome of care in patients with low back pain who were managed by physicians or physical therapists in private practice in the state of Arizona. A secondary purpose was to describe the current status of private practice physical therapy clinicians who treat patients with low back pain.^ A Survey on Practice was mailed to 194 physical therapists who were listed by the American Physical Therapy Association as being in private practice in Arizona. Eighty-three percent of the surveys were returned after three attempts. Of those which were returned, 72 were complete and included in the analysis.^ The 72 practices were screened to determine those eligible for the second phase of the study. Those eligible for the second phase numbered 52 clinics. Twenty-six practices agreed to participate; however, only 21 did participate. Clinics which participated were sent packets of information which were to be kept on each patient seen with a complaint of low back pain during a three month period. Packets contained a patient-oriented survey on functional activity to be completed before and after the physical therapy course of treatment, as well as a log which was completed by the physical therapist on the type of care given to the patient and an assessment of the outcome of treatment. The patient was asked to fill out a satisfaction survey relative to the care received from the physical therapist and physician, if applicable.^ Although 259 patients were entered into the study, 210 patient logs were available for analysis. Results indicated that generally, there was no difference in cost or outcome as measured by the final functional score, change between the initial and final functional scores, or the therapist-rated outcome between the patients who were managed by physicians or physical therapists when controlling for age and length of time the patient was experiencing pain. Patients were more satisfied with care received from physical therapists as compared to physicians. Age and length of pain were good predictors of the type of referral patients received according to a logistic regression procedure. The initial disability score (IRS) and the time spent in the facility predicted therapist-rated outcome, a good or poor final disability score (FRS), and a good or poor change score. In addition, age predicted FRS and change scores. The time that the therapist spent in direct contact with the patient also predicted the change score.^ These findings of no difference in the cost and outcome of care were discussed as they relate to the practice of medicine and physical therapy. ^

Screening for hypercholesterolemia in family practice

The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) To see if there was any difference in screening for hypercholesterolemia in a Family Practice setting after two national recommendations of 1985 and 1988. (2) To see if presence of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors e.g. smoking, hypertension, family history of heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and obesity influenced screening for hypercholesterolemia.^ A retrospective chart auditing was done at the Baylor College of Medicine, Family Practice Center, Houston for the years of 1985, 1986 and 1989. Statistically significant improvement in screening was observed in 1989 (after the second NCEP recommendations of 1988) compared to 1986 data (after the first national recommendations of 1985). But the proportion of target population screened (about 35%) was still far below the NCEP recommendations. Probably due to the small number of patients with CHD risk factors, no significant statistical differences were found in screening for hypercholesterolemia in 1985, 1986 and 1989 in patients with any CHD risk factor. ^

Costs and quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics

Medication reconciliation, with the aim to resolve medication discrepancy, is one of the Joint Commission patient safety goals. Medication errors and adverse drug events that could result from medication discrepancy affect a large population. At least 1.5 million adverse drug events and $3.5 billion of financial burden yearly associated with medication errors could be prevented by interventions such as medication reconciliation. This research was conducted to answer the following research questions: (1a) What are the frequency range and type of measures used to report outpatient medication discrepancy? (1b) Which effective and efficient strategies for medication reconciliation in the outpatient setting have been reported? (2) What are the costs associated with medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (3) What is the quality of medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics? (4) Is medication reconciliation practice in primary care clinics cost-effective from the clinic perspective? Study designs used to answer these questions included a systematic review, cost analysis, quality assessments, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Data sources were published articles in the medical literature and data from a prospective workflow study, which included 150 patients and 1,238 medications. The systematic review confirmed that the prevalence of medication discrepancy was high in ambulatory care and higher in primary care settings. Effective strategies for medication reconciliation included the use of pharmacists, letters, a standardized practice approach, and partnership between providers and patients. Our cost analysis showed that costs associated with medication reconciliation practice were not substantially different between primary care clinics using or not using electronic medical records (EMR) ($0.95 per patient per medication in EMR clinics vs. $0.96 per patient per medication in non-EMR clinics, p=0.78). Even though medication reconciliation was frequently practiced (97-98%), the quality of such practice was poor (0-33% of process completeness measured by concordance of medication numbers and 29-33% of accuracy measured by concordance of medication names) and negatively (though not significantly) associated with medication regimen complexity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for concordance of medication number per patient per medication and concordance of medication names per patient per medication were both 0.08, favoring EMR. Future studies including potential cost-savings from medication features of the EMR and potential benefits to minimize severity of harm to patients from medication discrepancy are warranted. ^