scholarly journals Should We Google It? Resource Use by Internal Medicine Residents for Point-of-Care Clinical Decision Making

2013 ◽  
Vol 88 (6) ◽  
pp. 788-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alisa Duran-Nelson ◽  
Sophia Gladding ◽  
Jim Beattie ◽  
L. James Nixon
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Internal Medicine Residents

scholarly journals Peer Discussion Decreases Practice Intensity and Increases Certainty in Clinical Decision-Making Among Internal Medicine Residents

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-376
Author(s):  
Neha Bansal Etherington ◽  
Caitlin Clancy ◽  
R. Benson Jones ◽  
C. Jessica Dine ◽  
Gretchen Diemer
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Internal Medicine Residents ◽  
Average Group ◽  
Peer Discussion ◽  
Individual Scores

ABSTRACT Background Team-based decision-making has been shown to reduce diagnostic error, increase clinical certainty, and decrease adverse events. Objective This study aimed to assess the effect of peer discussion on resident practice intensity (PI) and clinical certainty (CC). Methods A vignette-based instrument was adapted to measure PI, defined as the likelihood of ordering additional diagnostic tests, consultations or empiric treatment, and CC. Internal medicine residents at 7 programs in the Philadelphia area from April 2018 to June 2019 were eligible for inclusion in the study. Participants formed groups and completed each item of the instrument individually and as a group with time for peer discussion in between individual and group responses. Predicted group PI and CC scores were compared with measured group PI and CC scores, respectively, using paired t testing. Results Sixty-nine groups participated in the study (response rate 34%, average group size 2.88). The measured group PI score (2.29, SD = 0.23) was significantly lower than the predicted group PI score (2.33, SD = 0.22) with a mean difference of 0.04 (SD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.02–0.07; P = .0002). The measured group CC score (0.493, SD = 0.164) was significantly higher than the predicted group CC score (0.475, SD = 0.136) with a mean difference of 0.018 (SD = 0.073; 95% CI 0.0006–0.0356; P = .022). Conclusions In this multicenter study of resident PI, peer discussion reduced PI and increased CC more than would be expected from averaging group members' individual scores.

POCT errors can lead to false potassium results

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Buño ◽  
Paloma Oliver
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Intervention ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
Severe Hyperkalemia ◽  
Wrong Diagnosis ◽  
Critical Patients

Abstract Point-of-care-testing (POCT) facilitates rapid availability of results that allows prompt clinical decision making. These results must be reliable and the whole process must not compromise its quality. Blood gas analyzers are one of the most used methods for POCT tests in Emergency Departments (ED) and in critical patients. Whole blood is the preferred sample, and we must be aware that hemolysis can occur. These devices cannot detect the presence of hemolysis in the sample, and because of the characteristics of the sample, we cannot visually detect it either. Hemolysis can alter the result of different parameters, including potassium with abnormal high results or masking low levels (hypokalemia) when reporting normal concentrations. Severe hyperkalemia is associated with the risk of potentially fatal cardiac arrhythmia and demands emergency clinical intervention. Hemolysis can be considered the most frequent cause of pseudohyperkalemia (spurious hyperkalemia) or pseudonormokalemia and can be accompanied by a wrong diagnosis and an ensuing inappropriate clinical decision making. A complete review of the potential causes of falsely elevated potassium concentrations in blood is presented in this article. POCT programs properly led and organized by the clinical laboratory can help to prevent errors and their impact on patient care.

Point of Care Ultrasound in Geriatric Patients: Prospective Evaluation of a Portable Handheld Ultrasound Device

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (03) ◽  
pp. 308-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eckhart Fröhlich ◽  
Katharina Beller ◽  
Reinhold Muller ◽  
Maria Herrmann ◽  
Ines Debove ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Geriatric Patients ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Handheld Device ◽  
Ultrasound Device ◽  
Handheld Ultrasound

Abstract Purpose The aim of the current study was to evaluate point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in geriatric patients by echoscopy using a handheld ultrasound device (HHUSD, VScan) at bedside in comparison to a high-end ultrasound system (HEUS) as the gold standard. Materials and Methods Prospective observational study with a total of 112 geriatric patients. The ultrasound examinations were independently performed by two experienced blinded examiners with a portable handheld device and a high-end ultrasound device. The findings were compared with respect to diagnostic findings and therapeutic implications. Results The main indications for the ultrasound examinations were dyspnea (44.6 %), fall (frailty) (24.1 %) and fever (21.4 %). The most frequently found diagnoses were cystic lesions 32.1 % (35/109), hepatic vein congestion 19.3 % (21/109) and ascites 13.6 % (15/110). HHUSD delivered 13 false-negative findings in the abdomen resulting in an “overall sensitivity” of 89.5 %. The respective “overall specificity” was 99.6 % (7 false-positive diagnoses). HHUSD (versus HEUS data) resulted in 13.6 % (17.3 %) diagnostically relevant procedures in the abdomen and 0.9 % (0.9 %) in the thorax. Without HHUSD (HEUS) 95.7 % (100 %) of important pathological findings would have been missed. Conclusion The small HHUSD tool improves clinical decision-making in immobile geriatric patients at the point of care (geriatric ward). In most cases, HHUSD allows sufficiently accurate yes/no diagnoses already at the bedside, thereby clarifying the leading symptoms for early clinical decision-making.

scholarly journals Factors affecting clinical decision-making in inflammatory bowel disease and the role of point-of-care calprotectin

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 1756283X1774473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yannick Derwa ◽  
Christopher J.M. Williams ◽  
Ruchit Sood ◽  
Saqib Mumtaz ◽  
M. Hassan Bholah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Mucosal Inflammation ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

Objectives: Patient-reported symptoms correlate poorly with mucosal inflammation. Clinical decision-making may, therefore, not be based on objective evidence of disease activity. We conducted a study to determine factors associated with clinical decision-making in a secondary care inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) population, using a cross-sectional design. Methods: Decisions to request investigations or escalate medical therapy were recorded from outpatient clinic encounters in a cohort of 276 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn’s disease (CD). Disease activity was assessed using clinical indices, self-reported flare and faecal calprotectin ≥ 250 µg/g. Demographic, disease-related and psychological factors were assessed using validated questionnaires. Logistic regression was performed to determine the association between clinical decision-making and symptoms, mucosal inflammation and psychological comorbidity. Results: Self-reported flare was associated with requesting investigations in CD [odds ratio (OR) 5.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.84–17.0] and UC (OR 10.8; 95% CI 1.8–64.3), but mucosal inflammation was not (OR 1.62; 95% CI 0.49–5.39; and OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.21–1.05, respectively). Self-reported flare (OR 7.96; 95% CI 1.84–34.4), but not mucosal inflammation (OR 1.67; 95% CI 0.46–6.13) in CD, and clinical disease activity (OR 10.36; 95% CI 2.47–43.5) and mucosal inflammation (OR 4.26; 95% CI 1.28–14.2) in UC were associated with escalation of medical therapy. Almost 60% of patients referred for investigation had no evidence of mucosal inflammation. Conclusions: Apart from escalation of medical therapy in UC, clinical decision-making was not associated with mucosal inflammation in IBD. The use of point-of-care calprotectin testing may aid clinical decision-making, improve resource allocation and reduce costs in IBD.

Point-of-Care Creatinine to Assist Clinical Decision Making in Suspected Sepsis in the Community

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-45
Author(s):  
Susan Simpson ◽  
Joshua Storrar ◽  
James Ritchie ◽  
Khalid Alshawy ◽  
Leonard Ebah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Suspected Sepsis

scholarly journals P114: Barriers and facilitators affecting implementation of a decision aid for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome: a qualitative study

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. S106-S106
Author(s):  
C. Dmitriew ◽  
R. Ohle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Acute Aortic Syndrome ◽  
D Dimer

Introduction: Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an uncommon, life-threatening emergency that is frequently misdiagnosed. The Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of AAS were developed in order to reduce the frequency of misdiagnoses and number of diagnostic tests. As part of the guidelines, a clinical decision aid was developed in order to facilitate clinician decision-making based on practice recommendations. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians to implementation of the decision aid. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with emergency room physicians working at 5 sites distributed between urban academic and rural settings. We used purposive sampling, contacting ED physicians until data saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand potential barriers and facilitators affecting the probability of decision aid uptake and accurate application of the tool. Two independent raters coded interview transcripts using an integrative approach to theme identification, combining an inductive approach to identification of themes within an organizing framework (Theoretical Domains Framework), discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. Results: A majority of interviewees anticipated that the decision aid would support clinical decision making and risk stratification while reducing resource use and missed diagnoses. Facilitators identified included validation and publication of the guidelines as well as adoption by peers. Barriers to implementation and application of the tool included the fact that the use of D-dimer and knowledge of the rationale for its use in the investigation of AAS were not widespread. Furthermore, scoring components were, at times, out of alignment with clinician practices and understanding of risk factors. The complexity of the decision aid was also identified as a potential barrier to accurate use. Conclusion: Physicians were amenable to using the AAS decision aid to support clinical decision-making and to reduce resource use, particularly within rural contexts. Key barriers identified included the complexity of scoring and inclusion criteria, and the variable acceptance of D-dimer among clinicians. These barriers should be addressed prior to implementation of the decision aid during validation studies of the clinical practice guidelines.

scholarly journals Perception and Usage of Point of Care Devices: A Cross-sectional Study Targeting Residents and Trainers in Oman

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. e213-e213
Author(s):  
Amna Al Harrasi ◽  
Laila Mohammed Al Mbeihsi ◽  
Abdulhakeem Al Rawahi ◽  
Mohammed Al Shafaee
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Mobile Technologies ◽  
Handheld Devices ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Impact

Objectives: The use of mobile technologies and handheld computers by physicians has increased worldwide. However, there are limited studies globally regarding training physicians on the use of such devices in clinical practice. In addition, no studies have been conducted previously in Oman addressing this issue among postgraduate medical trainees and trainers. The present study explores the practice and perception of resident doctors and trainers towards the use of mobile technologies and handheld devices in healthcare settings in Oman. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated questionnaire disseminated via email to all residents and trainers in five major training programs of the Oman Medical Specialty Board (OMSB). The questionnaire explored three main areas; perception, usage, and perceived barriers of handheld devices. Results: Overall, 61.4% of the residents and 28.3% of the trainers responded to the questionnaire. Both types of participants agreed that the use of such devices positively affects clinical decision-making. In total, 98.8% of the participating residents and 86.7% of the trainers frequently used handheld devices. Both OMSB residents and trainers agreed that lack of time, training, and applications were the most common factors limiting the use of these devices. Participants emphasized the need for constructive training regarding the use of handheld devices as healthcare resources. Conclusions: Point-of-care devices are positively perceived and frequently used by OMSB trainees and trainers. However, constructive training on the effective usage of these devices in clinical decision-making is needed. Further future studies to evaluate the impact of using such devices in patient care should be conducted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document