PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M L Chambliss

Publications and source records attributed to M L Chambliss.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

The mini electronic medical record: a low-cost, low-risk partial solution.

Electronic medical records (EMRs) offer many advantages. However, there are also risks involved with adopting a full commercial EMR. These include high cost, the disruption of clinic routines, and poor or no vendor support. We created and implemented a partial, or miniature EMR (mini EMR) based on Microsoft Access 97 (Microsoft Corporation; Redmond, Wash). This program serves as an electronic front sheet for the patient chart that records International Classification of Diseases--9th revision codes and chronic medications and allergies, and provides reminders for prevention procedures. The mini EMR has been inexpensive, adaptable, easy to maintain, and very well accepted, and it has caused little interruption of our clinical activities. We believe the program can serve as a bridge to a future commercial EMR once that market has matured.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2000

A taxonomy of generic clinical questions: classification study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a taxonomy of doctors' questions about patient care that could be used to help answer such questions. DESIGN: Use of 295 questions asked by Oregon primary care doctors to modify previously developed taxonomy of 1101 clinical questions asked by Iowa family doctors. SETTING: Primary care practices in Iowa and Oregon. PARTICIPANTS: Random samples of 103 Iowa family doctors and 49 Oregon primary care doctors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus among seven investigators on a meaningful taxonomy of generic questions; interrater reliability among 11 individuals who used the taxonomy to classify a random sample of 100 questions: 50 from Iowa and 50 from Oregon. RESULTS: The revised taxonomy, which comprised 64 generic question types, was used to classify 1396 clinical questions. The three commonest generic types were "What is the drug of choice for condition x?" (150 questions, 11%); "What is the cause of symptom x?" (115 questions, 8%); and "What test is indicated in situation x?" (112 questions, 8%). The mean interrater reliability among 11 coders was moderate (kappa=0.53, agreement 55%). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical questions in primary care can be categorised into a limited number of generic types. A moderate degree of interrater reliability was achieved with the taxonomy developed in this study. The taxonomy may enhance our understanding of doctors' information needs and improve our ability to meet those needs.

Classification↗
PubMed1999

Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the information needs of family doctors by collecting the questions they asked about patient care during consultations and to classify these in ways that would be useful to developers of knowledge bases. DESIGN: Observational study in which investigators visited doctors for two half days and collected their questions. Taxonomies were developed to characterise the clinical topic and generic type of information sought for each question. SETTING: Eastern Iowa. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 103 family doctors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of questions posed, pursued, and answered; topic and generic type of information sought for each question; time spent pursuing answers; information resources used. RESULTS: Participants asked a total of 1101 questions. Questions about drug prescribing, obstetrics and gynaecology, and adult infectious disease were most common and comprised 36% of all questions. The taxonomy of generic questions included 69 categories; the three most common types, comprising 24% of all questions, were "What is the cause of symptom X?" "What is the dose of drug X?" and "How should I manage disease or finding X?" Answers to most questions (702, 64%) were not immediately pursued, but, of those pursued, most (318, 80%) were answered. Doctors spent an average of less than 2 minutes pursuing an answer, and they used readily available print and human resources. Only two questions led to a formal literature search. CONCLUSIONS: Family doctors in this study did not pursue answers to most of their questions. Questions about patient care can be organised into a limited number of generic types, which could help guide the efforts of knowledge base developers.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Distilling the literature: a randomized, controlled trial testing an intervention to improve selection of medical articles for reading.

PURPOSE: To test whether an academic detailing intervention would improve journal reading among residents. METHOD: In 1995-96, the authors conducted a randomized controlled trial at two family medicine residencies in Missouri. Fifty-nine family practice residents were randomized into two groups identical in baseline characteristics; 29 received individual 15-minute educational presentations, based on academic detailing, that emphasized careful selection of medical journal articles for reading. The authors measured the percentage of important journal articles of which the residents were aware, the percentage of those they had read (either abstract only or the whole article), and the percentage of correctly answered knowledge questions. RESULTS: Despite randomization, the residents in the control group indicated on the pretest that they were more likely than were the residents in the intervention group to be aware of and to have read abstracts from selected articles. However, when comparing pretest with posttest results, the intervention group recalled 18.2% (95% CI, 2.0, 34.0) more articles and correctly answered 16.6% (95% CI 3.0, 29.9) more knowledge questions than did the control group. CONCLUSION: A brief intervention increased residents' recall of important articles and knowledge of those articles' conclusions.

Decision Making↗
PubMed1999

Should primary care patients be screened for orthostatic hypotension?

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians test for orthostatic hypotension to find risk factors they can modify. By doing so, they may prevent adverse outcomes related to falls and ischemic organ injury due to hypoperfusion. Varied recommendations have been made regarding which patients to test, measurement methods, and the definition of a clinically significant postural decline in blood pressure. METHODS: We identified research articles relating to orthostatic hypotension by doing a literature review. Eleven articles were selected on the basis of quality of research methods and applicability to primary care practice from which prevalence, associated factors, and outcomes related to orthostatic hypotension were reported. RESULTS: The prevalence of orthostatic hypotension varied from 13% to 30.3% in elderly patients. Hypertension was the most consistently associated diagnosis. Two of 3 studies did not find an association between orthostatic hypotension and mortality, and the third found that association only in patients with diabetes and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The information available does not support postural blood pressure testing as a screening device among patients attending primary care practices. However, there is evidence to support the testing of high-risk subgroups of patients. Answers to the proposed research questions will clarify how testing for orthostatic hypotension can be most effectively applied in primary care.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Lifelong self-directed learning using a computer database of clinical questions.

Physicians often have self-perceived knowledge gaps when they are seeing patients. Traditional continuing medical education is designed to meet the knowledge gaps of groups rather than individual physicians with specific patient problems. Physicians with clinical information needs are advised to critically evaluate high-quality original research in order to practice "evidence-based medicine." But this advice may be unrealistic for busy clinicians. We propose a system for documenting self-perceived information needs using a computer database. Concise answers to these needs are included in the database along with reference citations supporting the answers. The system tracks continuing education efforts, directs patient care decisions, and focuses lifelong learning on relevant topics. We emphasize the importance of being sensitive to personal information needs and the benefits of maintaining a record of these needs.

Clinical Medicine↗
PubMed1996

Choosing the best medications.

Physicians can create their own personal formulary by rigorously selecting and regularly using one or two drugs for each clinical condition they commonly encounter. The primary and secondary medical literature provides the necessary information to create this formulary. Primary literature sources include peer-reviewed articles of randomized, double-blind clinical trials that compare medications. Secondary information sources include Physicians' Desk Reference and Drug Facts and Comparisons, which summarize but do not recommend particular drugs. Other secondary sources, such as The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics and review articles in peer-reviewed journals, compare drug classes and make recommendations about the drug of choice. The main medication characteristics to compare are efficacy, safety, patient acceptability and cost. The most objective information on efficacy is obtained through large, methodologically sound clinical trials that evaluate meaningful clinical outcomes. Three safety criteria to review include adverse drug effects, interactions with other drugs and the extent of clinical experience with the medication. Factors that contribute to patient acceptability should also be taken into consideration.

Decision Trees↗
PubMed1996

Answering clinical questions.

BACKGROUND: Physicians often have unanswered clinical questions. The purpose of this study was to determine how often the answers to these questions can be found in the medical literature. METHODS: We collected unanswered clinical questions from family physicians at the end of clinical half-days. The authors and medical librarians then used textbooks and MEDLINE to find answers to each question. We returned to the physicians one to five selected references for each question. Each physician rated these sources on how well they answered the questions and how they might influence the physician's practice. RESULTS: One hundred three questions were gathered. Physicians asked an average of 0.5 questions per half-day. We searched for answers to 86 questions, and the physicians returned ratings for 84. Forty-five (54%) of these questions were fully or nearly fully answered by the materials returned to the physicians. Of the questions for which answers were found, MEDLINE searches accounted for 71%; textbooks, 20%; and a combination, 9%. MEDLINE searches took an average of 27 minutes, whereas textbook searches averaged 6 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: The medical literature can provide answers to a majority of clinical questions; however, finding these answers is time-consuming and expensive. Physicians need more efficient ways to answer their clinical questions.

Family Practice↗