Dataset Information

Information needs of generalists and specialists using online best-practice algorithms to answer clinical questions.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To better understand clinician information needs and learning opportunities by exploring the use of best-practice algorithms across different training levels and specialties.

Methods

We developed interactive online algorithms (care process models [CPMs]) that integrate current guidelines, recent evidence, and local expertise to represent cross-disciplinary best practices for managing clinical problems. We reviewed CPM usage logs from January 2014 to June 2015 and compared usage across specialty and provider type.

Results

During the study period, 4009 clinicians (2014 physicians in practice, 1117 resident physicians, and 878 nurse practitioners/physician assistants [NP/PAs]) viewed 140 CPMs a total of 81 764 times. Usage varied from 1 to 809 views per person, and from 9 to 4615 views per CPM. Residents and NP/PAs viewed CPMs more often than practicing physicians. Among 2742 users with known specialties, generalists ( N = 1397) used CPMs more often (mean 31.8, median 7 views) than specialists ( N = 1345; mean 6.8, median 2; P < .0001). The topics used by specialists largely aligned with topics within their specialties. The top 20% of available CPMs (28/140) collectively accounted for 61% of uses. In all, 2106 clinicians (52%) returned to the same CPM more than once (average 7.8 views per topic; median 4, maximum 195). Generalists revisited topics more often than specialists (mean 8.8 vs 5.1 views per topic; P < .0001).

Conclusions

CPM usage varied widely across topics, specialties, and individual clinicians. Frequently viewed and recurrently viewed topics might warrant special attention. Specialists usually view topics within their specialty and may have unique information needs.

SUBMITTER: Cook DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7651958 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Information needs of generalists and specialists using online best-practice algorithms to answer clinical questions.

Cook David A DA Sorensen Kristi J KJ Linderbaum Jane A JA Pencille Laurie J LJ Rhodes Deborah J DJ

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20170701 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To better understand clinician information needs and learning opportunities by exploring the use of best-practice algorithms across different training levels and specialties.<h4>Methods</h4>We developed interactive online algorithms (care process models [CPMs]) that integrate current guidelines, recent evidence, and local expertise to represent cross-disciplinary best practices for managing clinical problems. We reviewed CPM usage logs from January 2014 to June 2015 and compare ...[more]

PMID: 28339685

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommon information facilities do not always provide the quality information needed to answer questions on health or health-related issues, such as Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) matters. Barriers may be the accessibility, quantity and readability of information. Online Question & Answer (Q&A) network tools, which link questioners directly to experts can overcome some of these barriers. When designing and testing online tools, assessing the usability and applicability is essential. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the usability and applicability of a new online Q&A network tool for answers on OSH questions.MethodsWe applied a cross-sectional usability test design. Eight occupational health experts and twelve potential questioners from the working population (workers) were purposively selected to include a variety of computer- and internet-experiences. During the test, participants were first observed while executing eight tasks that entailed important features of the tool. In addition, they were interviewed. Through task observations and interviews we assessed applicability, usability (effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction) and facilitators and barriers in use.ResultsMost features were usable, though several could be improved. Most tasks were executed effectively. Some tasks, for example searching stored questions in categories, were not executed efficiently and participants were less satisfied with the corresponding features. Participants' recommendations led to improvements. The tool was found mostly applicable for additional information, to observe new OSH trends and to improve contact between OSH experts and workers. Hosting and support by a trustworthy professional organization, effective implementation campaigns, timely answering and anonymity were seen as important use requirements.ConclusionsThis network tool is a promising new strategy for offering company workers high quality information to answer OSH questions. Q&A network tools can be an addition to existing information facilities in the field of OSH, but also to other healthcare fields struggling with how to answer questions from people in practice with high quality information. In the near future, we will focus on the use of the tool and its effects on information and knowledge dissemination.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The study aimed to compare candidate performance between traditional best-of-five single-best-answer (SBA) questions and very-short-answer (VSA) questions, in which candidates must generate their own answers of between one and five words. The primary objective was to determine if the mean positive cue rate for SBAs exceeded the null hypothesis guessing rate of 20%. DESIGN:This was a cross-sectional study undertaken in 2018. SETTING:20 medical schools in the UK. PARTICIPANTS:1417 volunteer medical students preparing for their final undergraduate medicine examinations (total eligible population across all UK medical schools approximately 7500). INTERVENTIONS:Students completed a 50-question VSA test, followed immediately by the same test in SBA format, using a novel digital exam delivery platform which also facilitated rapid marking of VSAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The main outcome measure was the mean positive cue rate across SBAs: the percentage of students getting the SBA format of the question correct after getting the VSA format incorrect. Internal consistency, item discrimination and the pass rate using Cohen standard setting for VSAs and SBAs were also evaluated, and a cost analysis in terms of marking the VSA was performed. RESULTS:The study was completed by 1417 students. Mean student scores were 21 percentage points higher for SBAs. The mean positive cue rate was 42.7% (95% CI 36.8% to 48.6%), one-sample t-test against ≤20%: t=7.53, p<0.001. Internal consistency was higher for VSAs than SBAs and the median item discrimination equivalent. The estimated marking cost was £2655 ($3500), with 24.5 hours of clinician time required (1.25 s per student per question). CONCLUSIONS:SBA questions can give a false impression of students' competence. VSAs appear to have greater authenticity and can provide useful information regarding students' cognitive errors, helping to improve learning as well as assessment. Electronic delivery and marking of VSAs is feasible and cost-effective.

Project description:This study set out to analyze questions about type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from patients and the public. The aim was to better understand people's information needs by starting with what they do not know, discovered through their own questions, rather than starting with what we know about T2DM and subsequently finding ways to communicate that information to people affected by or at risk of the disease. One hundred and sixty-four questions were collected from 120 patients attending outpatient diabetes clinics and 300 questions from 100 members of the public through the Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing platform. Twenty-three general and diabetes-specific topics and five phases of disease progression were identified; these were used to manually categorize the questions. Analyses were performed to determine which topics, if any, were significant predictors of a question's being asked by a patient or the public, and similarly for questions from a woman or a man. Further analysis identified the individual topics that were assigned significantly more often to the crowdsourced or clinic questions. These were Causes (CI: [-0.07, -0.03], p < .001), Risk Factors ([-0.08, -0.03], p < .001), Prevention ([-0.06, -0.02], p < .001), Diagnosis ([-0.05, -0.02], p < .001), and Distribution of a Disease in a Population ([-0.05,-0.01], p = .0016) for the crowdsourced questions and Treatment ([0.03, 0.01], p = .0019), Disease Complications ([0.02, 0.07], p < .001), and Psychosocial ([0.05, 0.1], p < .001) for the clinic questions. No highly significant gender-specific topics emerged in our study, but questions about Weight were more likely to come from women and Psychosocial questions from men. There were significantly more crowdsourced questions about the time Prior to any Diagnosis ([(-0.11, -0.04], p = .0013) and significantly more clinic questions about Health Maintenance and Prevention after diagnosis ([0.07. 0.17], p < .001). A descriptive analysis pointed to the value provided by the specificity of questions, their potential to disclose emotions behind questions, and the as-yet unrecognized information needs they can reveal. Large-scale collection of questions from patients across the spectrum of T2DM progression and from the public-a significant percentage of whom are likely to be as yet undiagnosed-is expected to yield further valuable insights.

Dataset Information

Information needs of generalists and specialists using online best-practice algorithms to answer clinical questions.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Information needs of generalists and specialists using online best-practice algorithms to answer clinical questions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets