scholarly journals Patient-Care Questions that Physicians Are Unable to Answer

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Ely ◽  
Jerome A. Osheroff ◽  
Saverio M. Maviglia ◽  
Marcy E. Rosenbaum
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Clinical Information Systems ◽  
Unanswered Question ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Clinical Questions

Abstract Objective: To describe the characteristics of unanswered clinical questions and propose interventions that could improve the chance of finding answers. Design: In a previous study, investigators observed primary care physicians in their offices and recorded questions that arose during patient care. Questions that were pursued by the physician, but remained unanswered, were grouped into generic types. In the present study, investigators attempted to answer these questions and developed recommendations aimed at improving the success rate of finding answers. Measurements: Frequency of unanswered question types and recommendations to increase the chance of finding answers. Results: In an earlier study, 48 physicians asked 1062 questions during 192 half-day office observations. Physicians could not find answers to 237 (41%) of the 585 questions they pursued. The present study grouped the unanswered questions into 19 generic types. Three types accounted for 128 (54%) of the unanswered questions: (1) “Undiagnosed finding” questions asked about the management of abnormal clinical findings, such as symptoms, signs, and test results (What is the approach to finding X?); (2) “Conditional” questions contained qualifying conditions that were appended to otherwise simple questions (What is the management of X, given Y? where “given Y” is the qualifying condition that makes the question difficult.); and (3) “Compound” questions asked about the association between two highly specific elements (Can X cause Y?). The study identified strategies to improve clinical information retrieval, listed below. Conclusion: To improve the chance of finding answers, physicians should change their search strategies by rephrasing their questions and searching more clinically oriented resources. Authors of clinical information resources should anticipate questions that may arise in practice, and clinical information systems should provide clearer and more explicit answers.

scholarly journals Clinician-selected Electronic Information Resources do not Guarantee Accuracy in Answering Primary Care Physicians' Information Needs

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Martha Ingrid Preddie
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Information Needs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Electronic Information ◽  
Electronic Information Resources ◽  
Clinical Questions

A review of: McKibbon, K. Ann, and Douglas B. Fridsma. “Effectiveness of Clinician-selected Electronic Information Resources for Answering Primary Care Physicians’ Information Needs.” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 13.6 (2006): 653-9. Objective – To determine if electronic information resources selected by primary care physicians improve their ability to answer simulated clinical questions. Design – An observational study utilizing hour-long interviews and think-aloud protocols. Setting – The offices and clinics of primary care physicians in Canada and the United States. Subjects – 25 primary care physicians of whom 4 were women, 17 were from Canada, 22 were family physicians, and 24 were board certified. Methods – Participants provided responses to 23 multiple-choice questions. Each physician then chose two questions and looked for the answers utilizing information resources of their own choice. The search processes, chosen resources and search times were noted. These were analyzed along with data on the accuracy of the answers and certainties related to the answer to each clinical question prior to the search. Main results – Twenty-three physicians sought answers to 46 simulated clinical questions. Utilizing only electronic information resources, physicians spent a mean of 13.0 (SD 5.5) minutes searching for answers to the questions, an average of 7.3 (SD 4.0) minutes for the first question and 5.8 (SD 2.2) minutes to answer the second question. On average, 1.8 resources were utilized per question. Resources that summarized information, such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, UpToDate and Clinical Evidence, were favored 39.2% of the time, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed) 35.7%, and Internet resources including Google 22.6%. Almost 50% of the search and retrieval strategies were keyword-based, while MeSH, subheadings and limiting were used less frequently. On average, before searching physicians answered 10 of 23 (43.5%) questions accurately. For questions that were searched using clinician-selected electronic resources, 18 (39.1%) of the 46 answers were accurate before searching, while 19 (42.1%) were accurate after searching. The difference of one correct answer was due to the answers from 5 (10.9%) questions changing from correct to incorrect, while the answers to 6 questions (13.0%) changed from incorrect to correct. The ability to provide correct answers differed among the various resources. Google and Cochrane provided the correct answers about 50% of the time while PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, UpToDate, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews and InfoPOEMs were more likely to be associated with incorrect answers. Physicians also seemed unable to determine when they needed to search for information in order to make an accurate decision. Conclusion – Clinician-selected electronic information resources did not guarantee accuracy in the answers provided to simulated clinical questions. At times the use of these resources caused physicians to change self-determined correct answers to incorrect ones. The authors state that this was possibly due to factors such as poor choice of resources, ineffective search strategies, time constraints and automation bias. Library and information practitioners have an important role to play in identifying and advocating for appropriate information resources to be integrated into the electronic medical record systems provided by health care institutions to ensure evidence based health care delivery.

scholarly journals Risk Profile May Affect Search Process but Not Results

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Gale G. Hannigan
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Risk Attitude ◽  
Computer Skills ◽  
Information Resources ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Think Aloud ◽  
Risk Seeking ◽  
Online Rating ◽  
Clinical Questions

Objective – To compare the use, in terms of process and outcomes, of electronic information resources by primary care physicians with different risk profiles and comfort with uncertainty. Design – Survey, and observation using “think-aloud” method. Setting – Physicians’ offices. Subjects – Canadian and U.S. primary care physicians who report seeing patients in clinic settings. Methods – Volunteers were recruited from personal contacts and the list of physicians who rate current studies for the McMaster Online Rating of Evidence (MORE) project. Physicians completed the Pearson scale to measure attitude toward risk and the Gerrity scale to measure comfort with uncertainty, and those who scored at the extremes of each of these two scales were included in the study (n=25), resulting in four groups (risk-seeking, risk-avoiding, uncertainty-stressed, uncertainty-unstressed). One researcher observed each of these physicians in their offices for an hour during which they completed questionnaires about their computer skills and familiarity with resources, answered multiple-choice clinical questions, and indicated level of certainty with regard to those answers (scale of 0 to 100%). Physicians also chose two of the clinical questions to answer using their own resources. The think-aloud method was employed, and transcripts were coded and analyzed. Main results – The study analysis included two comparisons: risk-seeking (11 subjects) versus risk-avoiding (11 subjects) physicians, and uncertainty-stressed (11 subjects) versus uncertainty-unstressed (10 subjects) physicians. Most physicians were included in both sets of analyses. The researchers found no association of risk attitude and uncertainty stress with computer skills nor with familiarity and use of specific information resources (Internet, MEDLINE, PIER, Clinical Evidence, and UpToDate). No differences were found for the following outcomes: time spent searching, answers correct before searching, answers correct after searching, and certainty of answer if answer is right, certainty of answer if answer is wrong. There was a statistically significant association of participants’ indicating certainty for answers that were correct versus those that were not correct (p

scholarly journals 832 Groin Hernia Should Remain A Clinical Diagnosis -- An Evidence-Based Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Abu Elgasim ◽  
A Conroy ◽  
M R Cartland ◽  
P Sridhar
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Groin Hernia ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Ultrasound Finding ◽  
Positive Finding ◽  
Surgical Department ◽  
Retrospective Audit ◽  
Operative Findings

Abstract Introduction British Hernia Society (BHS) 2013 guidelines1 suggest that groin hernia diagnostic investigation should not be done at the primary care level. Nevertheless, General Practitioners refer patients with a positive ultrasound finding of groin hernia to secondary care. As a result, patients have false hopes that their symptoms would resolve if the ultrasound finding is addressed. The study aims to find the positive predictive value (PPV) for groin ultrasound for hernia and should the primary care physicians request the scan before referral to secondary care. Method A retrospective audit of outcome of patients referred to a general surgical department for groin hernia treatment. The study looked at elective groin hernia referrals for the period between June and August 2019. Results 127 patients were electively treated for groin hernia in secondary care. 40% of the patients had ultrasounds before treatment. The GP requested 78% of the ultrasounds. A positive finding was the reason for the referral. Two patients (5%) in this group had negative operative findings. 24 herniograms over 57 months for patients referred with positive ultrasound and negative clinical findings showed only 2 had positive findings (8%). None of the negative patients returned to the same hospital for groin hernia treatment until date. Conclusions It is recommended that the diagnostic tests for groin hernia be requested by the operating surgeon as per the BHS guidelines. Patients should not be subjected to hernia operations based on ultrasound findings as the PPV for this investigation is very low for patients who have negative clinical findings.2

scholarly journals Integrating population-wide laboratory testing data with physician audit-and-feedback reports to improve glycemic and cholesterol control among Ontarians with diabetes

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Campitelli ◽  
Michael Paterson ◽  
Mahmoud Azimaee ◽  
Anna Greenberg ◽  
P. Alison Paprica ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Laboratory Test ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Laboratory Test Results ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Cholesterol Control ◽  
Diabetes Patients

IntroductionImproving the care and management of patients with diabetes, particularly those with extreme blood glucose and/or cholesterol levels, has been identified as a key priority area for healthcare in Ontario. A multi-organizational collaboration produces audit-and-feedback reports distributed to consenting primary care physicians across the province for quality improvement purposes. Objectives and ApproachWe examined the feasibility of linking the Ontario Laboratory Information System (OLIS), a large and nearly population-wide database of laboratory test results in Ontario, with the existing provincial audit-and-feedback reporting structure to integrate aggregated, physician-level measures of glycemic and cholesterol control among patients with diabetes. All Ontario residents alive on March 31, 2014, attached to a primary care physician, and diagnosed with diabetes for at least two years were included. These patients were linked to OLIS to extract laboratory test orders and results for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) and low-density lipoproteins (LDL) between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014. ResultsThere were 1,108,530 diabetes patients included who were assigned to 10,085 primary care physicians. During fiscal year (FY) 2013, 70%, 64%, and 59% of diabetes patients were tested for HbA1C, LDL, and both measures, respectively. Among the 648,238 diabetes patients with at least one of each test in FY2013, 13% had a HbA1C test exceeding a threshold of 9%, 4% had a LDL test exceeding a threshold of 4 mmol/L, and 0.8% exceeded both thresholds. At the physician-level, the median (Interquartile Range) proportions of diabetes patients exceeding the testing thresholds were 12% (9%-16%) for HbA1c and 4% (2%-6%) for LDL. In a multilevel logistic regression model, there was significant between-physician variability in the proportions of diabetes patients exceeding the HbA1C (p Conclusion/ImplicationsWe developed a mechanism for integrating population-wide, clinical laboratory test results into physician audit-and-feedback reports to improve diabetes care in Ontario. Significant variation observed in the aggregated, physician-level proportions of diabetes patients testing above clinical thresholds for HbA1C and LDL highlights the importance of reporting such information to physicians.

scholarly journals What Results Should Be Returned from Opportunistic Screening in Translational Research?

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin M. E. Halverson ◽  
Sarah H. Jones ◽  
Laurie Novak ◽  
Christopher Simpson ◽  
Digna R. Velez Edwards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Electronic Medical Records ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Opportunistic Screening ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Undue Burden ◽  
Positive Results

Increasingly, patients without clinical indications are undergoing genomic tests. The purpose of this study was to assess their appreciation and comprehension of their test results and their clinicians’ reactions. We conducted 675 surveys with participants from the Vanderbilt Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) cohort. We interviewed 36 participants: 19 had received positive results, and 17 were self-identified racial minorities. Eleven clinicians who had patients who had participated in eMERGE were interviewed. A further 21 of these clinicians completed surveys. Participants spontaneously admitted to understanding little or none of the information returned to them from the eMERGE study. However, they simultaneously said that they generally found testing to be “helpful,” even when it did not inform their health care. Primary care physicians expressed discomfort in being asked to interpret the results for their patients and described it as an undue burden. Providing genetic testing to otherwise healthy patients raises a number of ethical issues that warrant serious consideration. Although our participants were enthusiastic about enrolling and receiving their results, they express a limited understanding of what the results mean for their health care. This fact, coupled the clinicians’ concern, urges greater caution when educating and enrolling participants in clinically non-indicated testing.

scholarly journals Improving After-Clinic Work Workflow in a Family Medicine Residency

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nguyen V ◽  
◽  
Jaqua E ◽  
Oh A ◽  
Altamirano M ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Training Session ◽  
P Value ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Family Medicine Residency ◽  
Resident Physicians ◽  
Family Medicine Residents

Introduction: The broad range of patients and diagnoses addressed by primary care physicians lends to a larger after-work clinic load. The resulting after-clinic work, including various in-basket tasks, can be a substantial burden to physicians, and potentially leading to burnout. The goal of this study is to generate a standardized workflow to improve physician after-clinic work efficiency and patient care. Methods: A nine-question pre- and post-intervention survey about afterclinic work management was administered to family medicine residents at a multi-specialty FQHC in California. The intervention was done in June 2020 and included a twenty-minute training session explaining how to implement a standardized in-basket management flowchart in a family medicine residency clinic. Results: Pre- and post-intervention data were analyzed using nonindependent paired sample t-tests. The survey was sent to all 40 family medicine residents. Pre- and post-intervention survey response rate was 77.5% and 97.5% respectively. The result of the nine questions post intervention were statistically significant (p value of <0.001). The standardized flowchart addressed adequate supervision of resident physicians’ patient care. Conclusion: The post-intervention results showed that having a clear and standardized flowchart enhanced the overall knowledge and understanding by the resident physicians in how to management the in-basket workflow. With increased patient access via telehealth and enhanced electronic medical records, it is essential to have effective teaching and supervision of resident physician after-clinic work. Successful teaching of after-clinic work will improve work-life balance and the overall success of the new primary care physician.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document