OBJECTIVES: A clinical informationist could provide the best available published evidence in response to clinicians' questions identified during the process of care. This study sought to assess the feasibility of an informationist service and to propose a model for its delivery in an Australian teaching hospital. Whilst similar services are increasing in the UK, with a long history in the USA, this is the first Australian study in an acute public hospital. METHODS: The views of 40/49 (82%) medical staff at the Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital, South Australia were canvassed using a questionnaire designed to address key issues relating to a proposed service. RESULTS: Doctors were receptive to its potential benefits, perceived it as relevant and likely to be used, and were interested in a pilot. They typically indicated a required response time of 24 h. They expressed limited concerns other than a likely high workload for such a service, and reported currently searching infrequently for evidence in response to clinical questions, citing time issues and unavailability of computers as current key barriers to pursuing clinical questions. CONCLUSIONS: An informationist service is feasible. Results suggest that a pilot could be run in an area of acute medicine where questions about therapy and diagnosis are likely to proliferate, and the informationist should attend consultant ward rounds and clinical meetings, aiming to provide a response within 24 h.
OBJECTIVES: A clinical informationist could provide the best available published evidence in response to clinicians' questions identified during the process of care. This study sought to assess the feasibility of an informationist service and to propose a model for its delivery in an Australian teaching hospital. Whilst similar services are increasing in the UK, with a long history in the USA, this is the first Australian study in an acute public hospital. METHODS: The views of 40/49 (82%) medical staff at the Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital, South Australia were canvassed using a questionnaire designed to address key issues relating to a proposed service. RESULTS: Doctors were receptive to its potential benefits, perceived it as relevant and likely to be used, and were interested in a pilot. They typically indicated a required response time of 24 h. They expressed limited concerns other than a likely high workload for such a service, and reported currently searching infrequently for evidence in response to clinical questions, citing time issues and unavailability of computers as current key barriers to pursuing clinical questions. CONCLUSIONS: An informationist service is feasible. Results suggest that a pilot could be run in an area of acute medicine where questions about therapy and diagnosis are likely to proliferate, and the informationist should attend consultant ward rounds and clinical meetings, aiming to provide a response within 24 h.