PubMed · 12515238
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Joel Potasznik. 2002. Thanks, TSBME.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12515238/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of clinicians' use of an online information retrieval system on their performance in answering clinical questions. DESIGN: Pre-/post-intervention experimental design. MEASUREMENTS: In a computer laboratory, 75 clinicians (26 hospital-based doctors, 18 family practitioners, and 31 clinical nurse consultants) provided 600 answers to eight clinical scenarios before and after the use of an online information retrieval system. We examined the proportion of correct answers pre- and post-intervention, direction of change in answers, and differences between professional groups. RESULTS: System use resulted in a 21% improvement in clinicians' answers, from 29% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.4-32.6) correct pre- to 50% (95% CI 46.0-54.0) post-system use. In 33% (95% CI 29.1-36.9) answers were changed from incorrect to correct. In 21% (95% CI 17.1-23.9) correct pre-test answers were supported by evidence found using the system, and in 7% (95% CI 4.9-9.1) correct pre-test answers were changed incorrectly. For 40% (35.4-43.6) of scenarios, incorrect pre-test answers were not rectified following system use. Despite significant differences in professional groups' pre-test scores [family practitioners: 41% (95% CI 33.0-49.0), hospital doctors: 35% (95% CI 28.5-41.2), and clinical nurse consultants: 17% (95% CI 12.3-21.7; chi(2) = 29.0, df = 2, p < 0.01)], there was no difference in post-test scores. (chi(2) = 2.6, df = 2, p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an online information retrieval system was associated with a significant improvement in the quality of answers provided by clinicians to typical clinical problems. In a small proportion of cases, use of the system produced errors. While there was variation in the performance of clinical groups when answering questions unaided, performance did not differ significantly following system use. Online information retrieval systems can be an effective tool in improving the accuracy of clinicians' answers to clinical questions.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a laparoscopic colorectal surgeon (LCRS) on the laparoscopic colectomy experience of a single academic center. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of case complexity, patient characteristics, operative and preparation time, and trends over time for the LCRS compared to two veteran laparoscopic surgeons (VLS). RESULTS: The LCRS performed 48 of the procedures (83%) and the VLS 10 (17%) for a total of 58 laparoscopic colon cases. The LCRS handled a greater number of complex cases (p = 0.07). For less complex cases, overall operative time differed for the two groups (LCRS = 220 +/- 11 vs VLS = 152 +/- 15 min, p = 0.004). Overall hospital stay was 4.8 +/- 0.6 days (range, 2-33). Minor complications occurred in 12 cases (21%); major complications in occurred in seven cases (12%). Among procedures performed by the LCRS, comparison of the first 24 cases to the second 24 demonstrated that operative and preparation time decreased in the second cohort (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The addition of an LCRS had a significant impact on this center's experience with laparoscopic colectomies in terms of both volume and case complexity.