PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Brendan M Reilly

Publications and source records attributed to Brendan M Reilly.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions.

Clinical prediction rules, sometimes called clinical decision rules, have proliferated in recent years. However, very few have undergone formal impact analysis, the standard of evidence to assess their impact on patient care. Without impact analysis, clinicians cannot know whether using a prediction rule will be beneficial or harmful. This paper reviews standards of evidence for developing and evaluating prediction rules; important differences between prediction rules and decision rules; how to assess the potential clinical impact of a prediction rule before translating it into a decision rule; methodologic issues critical to successful impact analysis, including defining outcome measures and estimating sample size; the importance of close collaboration between clinical investigators and practicing clinicians before, during, and after impact analysis; and the need to measure both efficacy and effectiveness when analyzing a decision rule's clinical impact. These considerations should inform future development, evaluation, and use of all clinical prediction or decision rules.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2006

Prospective cohort study of central venous catheters among internal medicine ward patients.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheter (CVC) use is less well described for patients outside the intensive care unit. We evaluated CVCs and the associated bloodstream infection rate among patients admitted to the general medical service. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of patients who had a CVC on admission or inserted during their stay on the general medical service in a public teaching hospital, November 15, 2004, to March 31, 2005. RESULTS: We identified 106 CVCs, 52 were present on admission and 54 were inserted; there were 682 catheter-days. The primary bloodstream infection rate was 4.4 per 1000 catheter-days (95% CI: 0.9-13): highest for catheters inserted in the emergency department compared with those inserted on other units (24 vs 1.7 per 1000 catheter-days), P = .045. By multivariable analysis, inadequate dressings were more likely among patients with a body mass index > or =30 kg/m(2), adjusted odds ratio, 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4-8.0). CONCLUSIONS: Many CVCs had previously been inserted in the emergency department or intensive care unit; therefore, strategies to reduce bloodstream infections that focus on ward insertion practices may not dramatically reduce bloodstream infection rates. Intervention strategies should target improved dressing care and consideration of early removal or replacement of catheters inserted in the emergency department.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

The essence of EBM.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2004

Evaluating the performance of inpatient attending physicians: a new instrument for today's teaching hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Instruments available to evaluate attending physicians fail to address their diverse roles and responsibilities in current inpatient practice. We developed a new instrument to evaluate attending physicians on medical inpatient services and tested its reliability and validity. DESIGN: Analysis of 731 evaluations of 99 attending physicians over a 1-year period. SETTING: Internal medicine residency program at a university-affiliated public teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All medical residents (N= 145) and internal medicine attending physicians (N= 99) on inpatient ward rotations for the study period. MEASUREMENTS: A 32-item questionnaire assessed attending physician performance in 9 domains: evidence-based medicine, bedside teaching, clinical reasoning, patient-based teaching, teaching sessions, patient care, rounding, professionalism, and feedback. A summary score was calculated by averaging scores on all items. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of eligible evaluations were completed and analyzed. Internal consistency among items in the summary score was 0.95 (Cronbach's alpha). Interrater reliability, using an average of 8 evaluations, was 0.87. The instrument discriminated among attending physicians with statistically significant differences on mean summary score and all 9 domain-specific mean scores (all comparisons, P <.001). The summary score predicted winners of faculty teaching awards (odds ratio [OR], 17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8 to 36) and was strongly correlated with residents' desire to work with the attending again (r =.79; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.83). The single item that best predicted the summary score was how frequently the physician made explicit his or her clinical reasoning in making medical decisions (r(2)=.90). CONCLUSION: The new instrument provides a reliable and valid method to evaluate the performance of inpatient teaching attending physicians.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2004

The impact of evidence on physicians' inpatient treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown that most medical inpatients receive treatment supported by strong evidence (evidence-based treatment), but they have not assessed whether and how physicians actually use evidence when making their treatment decisions. We investigated whether physicians would change inpatient treatment if presented with the results of a literature search. DESIGN: Before-after study. SETTING: Large public teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 146 inpatients cared for by 33 internal medicine attending physicians. INTERVENTIONS: After physicians committed to a specific diagnosis and treatment plan, investigators performed standardized literature searches and provided the search results to the attending physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary study outcome was the number of patients whose attending physicians would change treatment due to the literature searches. These changes were evaluated by blinded peer review. A secondary outcome was the proportion of patients who received evidence-based treatment before and after the literature searches. Attending physicians changed treatment for 23 (18%) of 130 eligible patients (95% confidence interval, 12% to 24%) as a result of the literature searches. Overall, 86% of patients (112 of 130) received evidence-based treatments before the searches and 87% (113 of 130) after the searches. Changes were not related to whether patients were receiving evidence-based treatment before the search (P =.6). Panels of peer reviewers judged the quality of patient care as improved or maintained for 18 (78%) of the 23 patients with treatment changes. CONCLUSIONS: Searching the literature could improve the treatment of many medical inpatients, including those already receiving evidence-based treatment.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Physical examination in the care of medical inpatients: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the clinical importance of skilled physical examination in the care of patients in hospital. METHODS: Hospital records of a systematic consecutive sample of patients admitted to a general medical inpatient service were reviewed retrospectively to determine whether physical findings by the attending physician led to important changes in clinical management. Patients with pivotal physical findings were defined by an outcomes adjudication panel as those whose diagnosis and treatment in hospital changed substantially as a result of the attending physician's physical examination. Pivotal findings were classed as validated if the resulting treatment change involved the active collaboration of a consulting specialist. Findings were classed as discoverable if subsequent diagnostic testing (other than physical examination) would probably have led to the correct diagnosis. Class 1 findings were those deemed validated but not discoverable. FINDINGS: Among 100 patients, 26 had pivotal physical findings (26%; 95% CI 18-36). 15 of these (58%; 95% CI 37-77) were validated (13 with urgent surgical or other invasive procedures) and 14 were discoverable (54%; 95% CI 33-73). Seven patients had class 1 findings (7%; 95% CI 3-14). INTERPRETATION: Physical examination can have a substantial effect on the care of medical inpatients. If replicated in other settings, these findings might have important implications for medical educators and quality improvement initiatives.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2002

Impact of a clinical decision rule on hospital triage of patients with suspected acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department.

CONTEXT: Emergency department (ED) physicians often are uncertain about where in the hospital to triage patients with suspected acute cardiac ischemia. Many patients are triaged unnecessarily to intensive or intermediate cardiac care units. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of a clinical decision rule improves physicians' hospital triage decisions for patients with suspected acute cardiac ischemia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective before-after impact analysis conducted at a large, urban, US public hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients admitted from the ED with suspected acute cardiac ischemia during 2 periods: preintervention group (n = 207 patients enrolled in March 1997) and intervention group (n = 1008 patients enrolled in August-November 1999). INTERVENTION: An adaptation of a previously validated clinical decision rule was adopted as the standard of care in the ED after a 3-month period of pilot testing and training. The rule predicts major cardiac complications within 72 hours after evaluation in the ED and stratifies patients' risk of major complications into 4 groups--high, moderate, low, and very low--according to electrocardiographic findings and presence or absence of 3 clinical predictors in the ED. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Safety of physicians' triage decisions, defined as the proportion of patients with major cardiac complications who were admitted to inpatient cardiac care beds (coronary care unit or inpatient telemetry unit); efficiency of decisions, defined as the proportion of patients without major complications who were triaged to an ED observation unit or an unmonitored ward. RESULTS: By intention-to-treat analysis, efficiency was higher in the intervention group (36%) than the preintervention group (21%) (difference, 15%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-21%; P<.001). Safety was not significantly different (94% in the intervention group vs 89%; difference, 5%; 95% CI, -11% to 39%; P =.57). Subgroup analysis of intervention-group patients showed higher efficiency when physicians actually used the decision rule (38% vs 27%; difference, 11%; 95% CI, 3%-18%; P =.01). Improved efficiency was explained solely by different triage decisions for very low-risk patients. Most surveyed physicians (16/19 [84%]) believed that the decision rule improved patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the clinical decision rule had a favorable impact on physicians' hospital triage decisions. Efficiency improved without compromising safety.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2002

Triage of patients with chest pain in the emergency department: a comparative study of physicians' decisions.

PURPOSE: Little is known about physicians' triage decisions for patients with chest pain in the emergency department. We sought to understand better the variability and accuracy of physicians' triage decisions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We used 20 simulated cases to compare triage decisions by 147 physicians (46 emergency medicine, 87 internal medicine, and 14 cardiology physicians) with triage decisions recommended by a previously validated prediction rule. We calculated triage sensitivity and specificity using the prediction rule to estimate the likelihood that each of the simulated patients would suffer a major complication. Triage sensitivity was defined as the proportion of all patients expected to have major complications who were triaged to the coronary care or inpatient telemetry unit. RESULTS: Triage specificity was defined as the proportion of all patients without complications who were triaged to sites other than the coronary care or inpatient telemetry unit.Physicians' triage decisions were less sensitive (85% vs. 96%, P <0.001) and less specific (38% vs. 41%, P = 0.02) than decisions recommended by the prediction rule. Physicians overestimated patients' risk of complications and triaged more patients to inpatient monitored beds. Despite their preference for inpatient monitored beds, physicians' decisions would have resulted in four times as many major complications in patients who were not triaged to inpatient monitored beds, compared with decisions recommended by the prediction rule (2.4% vs. 0.6%, P <0.001). Although physicians' decisions were best explained by their provisional diagnoses, interphysician agreement about triage decisions (kappa = 0.34) and diagnosis (kappa = 0.31) was only fair. CONCLUSIONS: In simulated cases, physicians' triage decisions varied widely and their predictions of patient outcomes differed markedly from that of the validated prediction rule, suggesting that use of the prediction rule in the emergency department could improve physicians' decisions and patients' outcomes.

Acute Disease↗