Feasibility of an evidence-based literature search service for general practitioners

Objective: To test the feasibility of an evidence-based clinical literature search service to help answer general practitioners' (GPs') clinical questions. Design: Two search services supplied GPs who submitted questions with the best available empirical evidence to answer these questions. The GPs provided feedback on the value of the service, and concordance of answers from the two search services was assessed. Setting: Two literature search services (Queensland and Victoria), operating for nine months from February 1999. Main outcome measures: Use of the service; time taken to locate answers; availability of evidence; value of the service to GPs; and consistency of answers from the two services. Results: 58 GPs asked 160 questions (29 asked one, 11 asked five or more). The questions concerned treatment (65%), aetiology (17%), prognosis (13%), and diagnosis (5%). Answering a question took a mean of 3 hours 32 minutes of personnel time (95% Cl, 2.67-3.97); nine questions took longer than 10 hours each to answer, the longest taking 23 hours 30 minutes. Evidence of suitable quality to provide a sound answer was available for 126 (79%) questions. Feedback data for 84 (53%) questions, provided by 42 GPs, showed that they appreciated the service, and asking the questions changed clinical care. There were many minor differences between the answers from the two centres, and substantial differences in the evidence found for 4/14 questions. However, conclusions reached were largely similar, with no or only minor differences for all questions. Conclusions: It is feasible to provide a literature search service, but further assessment is needed to establish its cost effectiveness.

Ways of using evidence-based medicine in general practice

General practitioners wanting to practise evidence-based medicine (EBM) are constrained by time factors and the great diversity of clinical problems they deal with. They need experience in knowing what questions to ask, in locating and evaluating the evidence, and in applying it. Conventional searching for the best evidence can be achieved in daily general practice. Sometimes the search can be performed during the consultation, but more often it can be done later and the patient can return for the result. Case-based journal clubs provide a supportive environment for GPs to work together to find the best evidence at regular meetings. An evidence-based literature search service is being piloted to enhance decision-making for individual patients. A central facility provides the search and interprets the evidence in relation to individual cases. A request form and a results format make the service akin to pathology testing or imaging. Using EBM in general practice appears feasible. Major difficulties still exist before it can be practised by all GPs, but it has the potential to change the way doctors update their knowledge.

An evidence-based medicine fellowship in a children's teaching hospital

This paper reports the introduction of an evidence-based medicine fellowship in a children’s teaching hospital. The results are presented of a self-reported ‘evidence-based medicine’ questionnaire, the clinical questions requested through the information retrieval service are outlined and the results of an information retrieval service user questionnaire are reported. It was confirmed that clinicians have frequent clinical questions that mostly remain unanswered. The responses to four questions with ‘good quality’ evidence-based answers were reviewed and suggest that at least one-quarter of doctors were not aware of the current best available evidence. There was a high level of satisfaction with the information retrieval service; 19% of users indicated that the information changed their clinical practice and 73% indicated that the information confirmed their clinical practice. The introduction of an evidence-based medicine fellowship is one method of disseminating the practice of evidence-based medicine in a tertiary children’s hospital.

Explicit evidence-based prescribing criteria - an important step in achieving quality therapeutics in nursing homes

Reaction between 5-(4-amino-2-thiabutyl)-5-methyl-3,7-dithianonane-1, 9-diamine (N3S3) and 5- methyl-2,2-bipyridine-5-carbaldehyde and subsequent reduction of the resulting imine with sodium borohydride results in a potentially ditopic ligand (L). Treatment of L with one equivalent of an iron( II) salt led to the monoprotonated complex [Fe(HL)](3+), isolated as the hexafluorophosphate salt. The presence of characteristic bands for the tris( bipyridyl) iron( II) chromophore in the UV/vis spectrum indicated that the iron( II) atom is coordinated octahedrally by the three bipyridyl (bipy) groups. The [Fe( bipy) 3] moiety encloses a cavity composed of the N3S3 portion of the ditopic ligand. The mononuclear and monomeric nature of the complex [Fe(HL)](3+) has been established also by accurate mass analysis. [Fe(HL)](3+) displays reduced stability to base compared with the complex [Fe(bipy)(3)](2+). In aqueous solution [Fe(HL)](3+) exhibits irreversible electrochemical behaviour with an oxidation wave ca. 60 mV to more positive potential than [Fe(bipy)(3)](2+). Investigations of the interaction of [Fe(L)](2+) with copper( II), iron( II), and mercury( II) using mass spectroscopic and potentiometric methods suggested that where complexation occurred, fewer than six of the N3S3 cavity donors were involved. The high affinity of the complex [Fe(L)](2+) for protons is one reason suggested to contribute to the reluctance to coordinate a second metal ion.

Whither our Art? Clinical Wisdom & Evidence-based Medicine

The relationship between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical judgement is the subject of conceptual and practical dispute. For example, EBM and clinical guidelines are seen to increasingly dominate medical decision-making at the expense of other, human elements, and to threaten the art of medicine. Clinical wisdom always remains open to question. We want to know why particular beliefs are held, and the epistemological status of claims based in wisdom or experience. The paper critically appraises a number of claims and distinctions, and attempts to clarify the connections between EBM, clinical experience and judgement, and the objective and evaluative categories of medicine. I conclude that to demystify clinical wisdom is not to devalue it. EBM ought not be conceived as needing to be limited or balanced by clinical wisdom, since if its language is translatable into terms comprehensible and applicable to individuals, it helps constitute clinical wisdom. Failure to appreciate this constitutive relation will help perpetuate medical paternalism and delay the adoption of properly evidence-based practice, which would be both unethical and unwise.