Using Evidence-Based Medicine to Help Physicians Keep Up-To-Date

David Sackett

doi:10.1629/09178

Abstract

Research shows that physicians need large amounts of external information on current best evidence to help them treat patients optimally. It is impossible for them to read all the relevant material and, indeed, reading time decreases rapidly after qualification. New sources are striving to produce selected structured s with expert clinical commentaries in order to achieve a useful combination of best evidence and clinical expertise.

Highlights

D d L Sackett, MD, FRCP (Canada), FRCP (London), FRCP (Edinburgh) is Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Unimity of Oxford, and Consultant Physician at the Oxford-Radclifi NHS Trust, Oxford
A group of North American general physicians responded to a questionnaire by stating that they needed new and clinically-important information just once or twice a week, and met these needs by consulting their textbooks and journals.' the 'shadowing' and d i m questioning of these same clinicians as they saw patients, identified up to 16 needs for new, clinically-importantinformation in just half a day, at a rate of about two questions for every three patients they saw
Only 30%of these information needs were met in the clinics and offices where the clinicians worked, and despite their earlier claim that they predominantly used texts and journals to gain this knowledge, direct observation again showed that most of it was obtained by asking colleagues

Summary

Introduction

D d L Sackett, MD, FRCP (Canada), FRCP (London), FRCP (Edinburgh) is Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Unimity of Oxford, and Consultant Physician at the Oxford-Radclifi NHS Trust, Oxford. A group of North American general physicians responded to a questionnaire by stating that they needed new and clinically-important information just once or twice a week, and met these needs by consulting their textbooks and journals.' the 'shadowing' and d i m questioning of these same clinicians as they saw patients, identified up to 16 needs for new, clinically-importantinformation in just half a day, at a rate of about two questions for every three patients they saw (about half of their questions were related to therapeutics, and a quarter to diagnosis).

Results

Conclusion