Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Jerome A Osheroff.
This document comprises an AMIA Board of Directors approved White Paper that presents a roadmap for national action on clinical decision support. It is published in JAMIA for archival and dissemination purposes. The full text of this material has been previously published on the AMIA Web site (www.amia.org/inside/initiatives/cds). AMIA is the copyright holder.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Clinical decision support (CDS) in electronic prescribing (eRx) systems can improve the safety, quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of care. However, at present, these potential benefits have not been fully realized. In this consensus white paper, we set forth recommendations and action plans in three critical domains: (1) advances in system capabilities, including basic and advanced sets of CDS interventions and knowledge, supporting database elements, operational features to improve usability and measure performance, and management and governance structures; (2) uniform standards, vocabularies, and centralized knowledge structures and services that could reduce rework by vendors and care providers, improve dissemination of well-constructed CDS interventions, promote generally applicable research in CDS methods, and accelerate the movement of new medical knowledge from research to practice; and (3) appropriate financial and legal incentives to promote adoption.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the most frequent obstacles preventing physicians from answering their patient-care questions and the most requested improvements to clinical information resources. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of questions asked by 48 randomly selected generalist physicians during ambulatory care. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of reported obstacles to answering patient-care questions and recommendations from physicians for improving clinical information resources. RESULTS: The physicians asked 1,062 questions but pursued answers to only 585 (55%). The most commonly reported obstacle to the pursuit of an answer was the physician's doubt that an answer existed (52 questions, 11%). Among pursued questions, the most common obstacle was the failure of the selected resource to provide an answer (153 questions, 26%). During audiotaped interviews, physicians made 80 recommendations for improving clinical information resources. For example, they requested comprehensive resources that answer questions likely to occur in practice with emphasis on treatment and bottom-line advice. They asked for help in locating information quickly by using lists, tables, bolded subheadings, and algorithms and by avoiding lengthy, uninterrupted prose. CONCLUSION: Physicians do not seek answers to many of their questions, often suspecting a lack of usable information. When they do seek answers, they often cannot find the information they need. Clinical resource developers could use the recommendations made by practicing physicians to provide resources that are more useful for answering clinical questions.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the obstacles encountered when attempting to answer doctors' questions with evidence. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: General practices in Iowa. PARTICIPANTS: 9 academic generalist doctors, 14 family doctors, and 2 medical librarians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A taxonomy of obstacles encountered while searching for evidence based answers to doctors' questions. RESULTS: 59 obstacles were encountered and organised according to the five steps in asking and answering questions: recognise a gap in knowledge, formulate a question, search for relevant information, formulate an answer, and use the answer to direct patient care. Six obstacles were considered particularly salient by the investigators and practising doctors: the excessive time required to find information; difficulty modifying the original question, which was often vague and open to interpretation; difficulty selecting an optimal strategy to search for information; failure of a seemingly appropriate resource to cover the topic; uncertainty about how to know when all the relevant evidence has been found so that the search can stop; and inadequate synthesis of multiple bits of evidence into a clinically useful statement. CONCLUSIONS: Many obstacles are encountered when asking and answering questions about how to care for patients. Addressing these obstacles could lead to better patient care by improving clinically oriented information resources.
A common challenge for primary care physicians is to determine the cause and find an effective treatment for leg edema of unclear etiology. We were unable to find existing practice guidelines that address this problem in a comprehensive manner. This article provides clinically oriented recommendations for the management of leg edema in adults. We searched on-line resources, textbooks, and MEDLINE (using the MeSH term, "edema") to find clinically relevant articles on leg edema. We then expanded the search by reviewing articles cited in the initial sources. Our goal was to write a brief, focused review that would answer questions about the management of leg edema. We organized the information to make it rapidly accessible to busy clinicians. The most common cause of leg edema in older adults is venous insufficiency. The most common cause in women between menarche and menopause is idiopathic edema, formerly known as "cyclic" edema. A common but under-recognized cause of edema is pulmonary hypertension, which is often associated with sleep apnea. Venous insufficiency is treated with leg elevation, compressive stockings, and sometimes diuretics. The initial treatment of idiopathic edema is spironolactone. Patients who have findings consistent with sleep apnea, such as daytime somnolence, loud [corrected] snoring, or neck circumference >17 inches, should be evaluated for pulmonary hypertension with an echocardiogram. If time is limited, the physician must decide whether the evaluation can be delayed until a later appointment (eg, an asymptomatic patient with chronic bilateral edema) or must be completed at the current visit (eg, a patient with dyspnea or a patient with acute edema [<72 hours]). If the evaluation should be conducted at the current visit, the algorithm shown in Figure 1 could be used as a guide. If the full evaluation could wait for a subsequent visit, the patient should be examined briefly to rule out an obvious systemic cause and basic laboratory tests should be ordered for later review (complete blood count, urinalysis, electrolytes, creatinine, blood sugar, thyroid stimulating hormone, and albumin).