Thomas Owens

BACKGROUND: Supporting 21st century health care and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires ubiquitous access to clinical information and to knowledge-based resources to answer clinical questions. Many questions go unanswered, however, due to lack of skills in formulating questions, crafting effective search strategies, and accessing databases to identify best levels of evidence. METHODS: This randomized trial was designed as a pilot study to measure the relevancy of search results using three different interfaces for the PubMed search system. Two of the search interfaces utilized a specific framework called PICO, which was designed to focus clinical questions and to prompt for publication type or type of question asked. The third interface was the standard PubMed interface readily available on the Web. Study subjects were recruited from interns and residents on an inpatient general medicine rotation at an academic medical center in the US. Thirty-one subjects were randomized to one of the three interfaces, given 3 clinical questions, and asked to search PubMed for a set of relevant articles that would provide an answer for each question. The success of the search results was determined by a precision score, which compared the number of relevant or gold standard articles retrieved in a result set to the total number of articles retrieved in that set. RESULTS: Participants using the PICO templates (Protocol A or Protocol B) had higher precision scores for each question than the participants who used Protocol C, the standard PubMed Web interface. (Question 1: A = 35%, B = 28%, C = 20%; Question 2: A = 5%, B = 6%, C = 4%; Question 3: A = 1%, B = 0%, C = 0%) 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the precision for each question using a lower boundary of zero. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping, suggesting no statistical difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Due to the small number of searches for each arm, this pilot study could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the search protocols. However there was a trend towards higher precision that needs to be investigated in a larger study to determine if PICO can improve the relevancy of search results.

The authors designed an electronic database of clinical questions (CQs) and medical evidence and implemented it in 2001-02 at Duke University Medical Center and the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina. This Web-based data collection system is called the Critical Appraisal Resource (CAR) and is still in operation. This report is of ten months of the system's operation. During their medicine ward rotations, residents entered CQs into the CAR; they also entered Medline reference links and validated article summaries. Residents' utilization of the CAR database, Medline, and other electronic resources was prospectively measured. In addition, residents were prospectively surveyed regarding the impact of each question and associated reference on medical decision making for individual patients. Over ten months, residents entered 625 patient-based CQs into the CAR and were able to obtain useful information from the medical literature on 82% of the CQs they searched. The two most prevalent CQ types were therapy and diagnosis questions (53% and 22%). Sixty percent of the therapy articles considered useful were reports of randomized controlled trials. Residents obtained 77% of their useful data from Medline. They reported that obtaining useful data altered patient management 47% of the time. Residents used the CAR as a resource, searching the database for information 1,035 times over the study period. In summary, the use of an evidence-based critical appraisal resource led residents to engage the medical literature on behalf of their patients and influenced approximately half of their patient-care decisions. Residents benefited from questions previously searched by other residents, allowing them to address a wider spectrum of CQs during ward rotations.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between graduate medical education (GME) and health systems is essential for the success of patient safety initiatives. One example is the development of an incentive program aligning trainee performance with health system quality and safety priorities. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to improve trainee safety event reporting and engagement in patient safety through a GME incentive program. METHODS: The incentive program was implemented to provide financial incentives to drive behavior and engage residents and fellows in safety efforts. Safety event reporting was measured beginning in the 2014-2015 academic year. A training module was introduced and the system reporting link was added to the institution's Resident Management System homepage. The number of reports by trainees was tracked over time, with a target of 2 reports per trainee per year. RESULTS: < .0001). A total of 516 trainees (57%), from 37 programs, received payment for the metric, based on a predefined program target of a mean of 2 reports per trainee. In 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 the submission rate was sustained, with 1234 and 1350 reports submitted by trainees, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An incentive program as part of a larger effort to address safety events is feasible and resulted in increased reporting by trainees.

Importance: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is commonly administered for selectively inhaled pulmonary vasodilation and prevention of oxidative injury after lung transplant (LT). Inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) has been introduced worldwide as a cost-saving alternative to iNO without high-grade evidence for this indication. Objective: To investigate whether the use of iEPO will lead to similar rates of severe/grade 3 primary graft dysfunction (PGD-3) after adult LT when compared with use of iNO. Design, Setting, and Participants: This health system-funded, randomized, blinded (to participants, clinicians, data managers, and the statistician), parallel-designed, equivalence clinical trial included 201 adult patients who underwent single or bilateral LT between May 30, 2017, and March 21, 2020. Patients were grouped into 5 strata according to key prognostic clinical features and randomized per stratum to receive either iNO or iEPO at the time of LT via 1:1 treatment allocation. Interventions: Treatment with iNO or iEPO initiated in the operating room before lung allograft reperfusion and administered continously until cessation criteria met in the intensive care unit (ICU). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was PGD-3 development at 24, 48, or 72 hours after LT. The primary analysis was for equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) procedure (90% CI) with a margin of 19% for between-group PGD-3 risk difference. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital and ICU lengths of stay, incidence and severity of acute kidney injury, postoperative tracheostomy placement, and in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality rates. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed for the primary and secondary outcomes, supplemented by per-protocol analysis for the primary outcome. Results: A total of 201 randomized patients met eligibility criteria at the time of LT (129 men [64.2%]). In the intention-to-treat population, 103 patients received iEPO and 98 received iNO. The primary outcome occurred in 46 of 103 patients (44.7%) in the iEPO group and 39 of 98 (39.8%) in the iNO group, leading to a risk difference of 4.9% (TOST 90% CI, -6.4% to 16.2%; P = .02 for equivalence). There were no significant between-group differences for secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing LT, use of iEPO was associated with similar risks for PGD-3 development and other postoperative outcomes compared with the use of iNO. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03081052.