Dataset Information

Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Ely JW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC551553 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Mar-Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions.

Ely John W JW Osheroff Jerome A JA Chambliss M Lee ML Ebell Mark H MH Rosenbaum Marcy E ME

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20041123 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To identify the most frequent obstacles preventing physicians from answering their patient-care questions and the most requested improvements to clinical information resources.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative analysis of questions asked by 48 randomly selected generalist physicians during ambulatory care.<h4>Measurements</h4>Frequency of reported obstacles to answering patient-care questions and recommendations from physicians for improving clinical information resources.<h4>Results< ...[more]

PMID: 15561792

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStaying up to date and answering clinical questions with current best evidence from health research is challenging. Evidence-based clinical texts, databases, and tools can help, but clinicians first need to translate their clinical questions into searchable queries. MacPLUS FS (McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service Federated Search) is an online search engine that allows clinicians to explore multiple resources simultaneously and retrieves one single output that includes the following: (1) evidence from summaries (eg, UpToDate and DynaMed), (2) preappraised research (eg, EvidenceAlerts), and (3) non-preappraised research (eg, PubMed), with and without validated bibliographic search filters. MacPLUS FS can also be used as a laboratory to explore clinical questions and evidence retrieval.ObjectiveOur primary objective was to examine how clinicians formulate their queries on a federated search engine, according to the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. Our secondary objective was to assess which resources were accessed by clinicians to answer their questions.MethodsWe performed an analytical survey among 908 clinicians who used MacPLUS FS in the context of a randomized controlled trial on search retrieval. Recording account log-ins and usage, we extracted all 1085 queries performed during a 6-month period and classified each search term according to the PICO framework. We further categorized queries into background (eg, "What is porphyria?") and foreground questions (eg, "Does treatment A work better than B?"). We then analyzed the type of resources that clinicians accessed.ResultsThere were 695 structured queries, after exclusion of meaningless queries and iterations of similar searches. We classified 56.5% (393/695) of these queries as background questions and 43.5% (302/695) as foreground questions, the majority of which were related to questions about therapy (213/695, 30.6%), followed by diagnosis (48/695, 6.9%), etiology (24/695, 3.5%), and prognosis (17/695, 2.5%). This distribution did not significantly differ between postgraduate residents and medical faculty physicians (P=.51). Queries included a median of 3 search terms (IQR 2-4), most often related to the population and intervention or test, rarely related to the outcome, and never related to the comparator. About half of the resources accessed (314/610, 51.5%) were summaries, 24.4% (149/610) were preappraised research, and 24.1% were (147/610) non-preappraised research.ConclusionsOur results, from a large sample of real-life queries, could guide the development of educational interventions to improve clinicians' retrieval skills, as well as inform the design of more useful evidence-based resources for clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02038439; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02038439.

Project description:Background and objectiveChat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based language processing model using deep learning to create human-like text dialogue. It has been a popular source of information covering vast number of topics including medicine. Patient education in head and neck cancer (HNC) is crucial to enhance the understanding of patients about their medical condition, diagnosis, and treatment options. Therefore, this study aims to examine the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT in answering questions regarding HNC.Methods154 head and neck cancer-related questions were compiled from sources including professional societies, institutions, patient support groups, and social media. These questions were categorized into topics like basic knowledge, diagnosis, treatment, recovery, operative risks, complications, follow-up, and cancer prevention. ChatGPT was queried with each question, and two experienced head and neck surgeons assessed each response independently for accuracy and reproducibility. Responses were rated on a scale: (1) comprehensive/correct, (2) incomplete/partially correct, (3) a mix of accurate and inaccurate/misleading, and (4) completely inaccurate/irrelevant. Discrepancies in grading were resolved by a third reviewer. Reproducibility was evaluated by repeating questions and analyzing grading consistency.ResultsChatGPT yielded "comprehensive/correct" responses to 133/154 (86.4%) of the questions whereas, rates of "incomplete/partially correct" and "mixed with accurate and inaccurate data/misleading" responses were 11% and 2.6%, respectively. There were no "completely inaccurate/irrelevant" responses. According to category, the model provided "comprehensive/correct" answers to 80.6% of questions regarding "basic knowledge", 92.6% related to "diagnosis", 88.9% related to "treatment", 80% related to "recovery - operative risks - complications - follow-up", 100% related to "cancer prevention" and 92.9% related to "other". There was not any significant difference between the categories regarding the grades of ChatGPT responses (p=0.88). The rate of reproducibility was 94.1% (145 of 154 questions).ConclusionChatGPT generated substantially accurate and reproducible information to diverse medical queries related to HNC. Despite its limitations, it can be a useful source of information for both patients and medical professionals. With further developments in the model, ChatGPT can also play a crucial role in clinical decision support to provide the clinicians with up-to-date information.

Dataset Information

Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions.

Objective

Design

Measurements

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets