OBJECTIVE: The research sought to determine the effect of a clinical medical librarian (CML) on outcomes of in-patients on the internal medicine service. METHODS: A prospective study was performed with two internal medicine in-patient teams. Team 1 included a CML who accompanied the team on daily rounds. The CML answered questions posed at the point of care immediately or in emails post-rounds. Patients on Team 2, which did not include a CML, as well as patients who did not require consultation by the CML on Team 1, served as the control population. Numerous clinical and library metrics were gathered on each question. RESULTS: Patients on Team 1 who required an answer to a clinical question were more ill and had a longer length of stay, higher costs, and higher readmission rates compared to those in the control group. Using a matched pair analysis, we showed no difference in clinical outcomes between the intervention group and the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest attempt to prospectively measure changes in patient outcomes when physicians were accompanied by a CML on rounds. This approach may serve as a model for further studies to define when and how CMLs are most effective.
OBJECTIVE: The research sought to determine the effect of a clinical medical librarian (CML) on outcomes of in-patients on the internal medicine service. METHODS: A prospective study was performed with two internal medicine in-patient teams. Team 1 included a CML who accompanied the team on daily rounds. The CML answered questions posed at the point of care immediately or in emails post-rounds. Patients on Team 2, which did not include a CML, as well as patients who did not require consultation by the CML on Team 1, served as the control population. Numerous clinical and library metrics were gathered on each question. RESULTS:Patients on Team 1 who required an answer to a clinical question were more ill and had a longer length of stay, higher costs, and higher readmission rates compared to those in the control group. Using a matched pair analysis, we showed no difference in clinical outcomes between the intervention group and the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest attempt to prospectively measure changes in patient outcomes when physicians were accompanied by a CML on rounds. This approach may serve as a model for further studies to define when and how CMLs are most effective.
Authors: Daniel E Banks; Runhua Shi; Donna F Timm; Kerri Ann Christopher; David Charles Duggar; Marianne Comegys; Jerry McLarty Journal: J Med Libr Assoc Date: 2007-10