Cargando…
Evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds
OBJECTIVE: The investigation sought to determine the effects of a clinical librarian (CL) on inpatient team clinical questioning quality and quantity, learner self-reported literature searching skills, and use of evidence-based medicine (EBM). METHODS: Clinical questioning was observed over 50 days...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medical Library Association
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5886500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29632440 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.254 |
_version_ | 1783312136811839488 |
---|---|
author | Brian, Riley Orlov, Nicola Werner, Debra Martin, Shannon K. Arora, Vineet M. Alkureishi, Maria |
author_facet | Brian, Riley Orlov, Nicola Werner, Debra Martin, Shannon K. Arora, Vineet M. Alkureishi, Maria |
author_sort | Brian, Riley |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The investigation sought to determine the effects of a clinical librarian (CL) on inpatient team clinical questioning quality and quantity, learner self-reported literature searching skills, and use of evidence-based medicine (EBM). METHODS: Clinical questioning was observed over 50 days of inpatient pediatric and internal medicine attending rounds. A CL was present for 25 days and absent for 25 days. Questioning was compared between groups. Question quality was assessed by a blinded evaluator, who used a rubric adapted from the Fresno Test of Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine. Team members were surveyed to assess perceived impacts of the CL on rounds. RESULTS: Rounds with a CL (CLR) were associated with significantly increased median number of questions asked (5 questions CLR vs. 3 NCLR; p<0.01) and answered (3 CLR vs. 2 NCLR; p<0.01) compared to rounds without a CL (NCLR). CLR were also associated with increased mean time spent asking (1.39 minutes CLR vs. 0.52 NCLR; p<0.01) and answering (2.15 minutes CLR vs. 1.05 NCLR; p=0.02) questions. Rounding time per patient was not significantly different between CLR and NCLR. Questions during CLR were 2 times higher in adapted Fresno Test quality than during NCLR (p<0.01). Select participants described how the CL’s presence improved their EBM skills and care decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient CLR were associated with more and improved clinical questioning and subjectively perceived to improve clinicians’ EBM skills. CLs may directly affect patient care; further study is required to assess this. CLs on inpatient rounds may be an effective means for clinicians to learn and use EBM skills. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5886500 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Medical Library Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58865002018-04-09 Evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds Brian, Riley Orlov, Nicola Werner, Debra Martin, Shannon K. Arora, Vineet M. Alkureishi, Maria J Med Libr Assoc Original Investigation OBJECTIVE: The investigation sought to determine the effects of a clinical librarian (CL) on inpatient team clinical questioning quality and quantity, learner self-reported literature searching skills, and use of evidence-based medicine (EBM). METHODS: Clinical questioning was observed over 50 days of inpatient pediatric and internal medicine attending rounds. A CL was present for 25 days and absent for 25 days. Questioning was compared between groups. Question quality was assessed by a blinded evaluator, who used a rubric adapted from the Fresno Test of Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine. Team members were surveyed to assess perceived impacts of the CL on rounds. RESULTS: Rounds with a CL (CLR) were associated with significantly increased median number of questions asked (5 questions CLR vs. 3 NCLR; p<0.01) and answered (3 CLR vs. 2 NCLR; p<0.01) compared to rounds without a CL (NCLR). CLR were also associated with increased mean time spent asking (1.39 minutes CLR vs. 0.52 NCLR; p<0.01) and answering (2.15 minutes CLR vs. 1.05 NCLR; p=0.02) questions. Rounding time per patient was not significantly different between CLR and NCLR. Questions during CLR were 2 times higher in adapted Fresno Test quality than during NCLR (p<0.01). Select participants described how the CL’s presence improved their EBM skills and care decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient CLR were associated with more and improved clinical questioning and subjectively perceived to improve clinicians’ EBM skills. CLs may directly affect patient care; further study is required to assess this. CLs on inpatient rounds may be an effective means for clinicians to learn and use EBM skills. Medical Library Association 2018-04 2018-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5886500/ /pubmed/29632440 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.254 Text en Copyright: © 2018, Authors. Articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Investigation Brian, Riley Orlov, Nicola Werner, Debra Martin, Shannon K. Arora, Vineet M. Alkureishi, Maria Evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds |
title | Evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds |
title_full | Evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds |
title_fullStr | Evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds |
title_short | Evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds |
title_sort | evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds |
topic | Original Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5886500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29632440 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.254 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brianriley evaluatingtheimpactofclinicallibrariansonclinicalquestionsduringinpatientrounds AT orlovnicola evaluatingtheimpactofclinicallibrariansonclinicalquestionsduringinpatientrounds AT wernerdebra evaluatingtheimpactofclinicallibrariansonclinicalquestionsduringinpatientrounds AT martinshannonk evaluatingtheimpactofclinicallibrariansonclinicalquestionsduringinpatientrounds AT aroravineetm evaluatingtheimpactofclinicallibrariansonclinicalquestionsduringinpatientrounds AT alkureishimaria evaluatingtheimpactofclinicallibrariansonclinicalquestionsduringinpatientrounds |