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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brian, Riley, Orlov, Nicola, Werner, Debra, Martin, Shannon K., Arora, Vineet M., Alkureishi, Maria
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