M A Ellsworth1, J M Homan2, J J Cimino3, S G Peters4, B W Pickering5, V Herasevich5. 1. Division of Neonatal Medicine, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN. 2. Mayo Clinic Libraries, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN. 3. Laboratory for Informatics Development, NIH Clinical Center , Bethesda, MD ; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University , New York, NY. 4. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN ; Multidisciplinary Epidemiology and Translation Research in Intensive Care (METRIC), Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand the literature searching preferences of clinical providers we conducted an institution-wide survey assessing the most preferred knowledge searching techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey regarding literature searching preferences was sent to 1862 unique clinical providers throughout Mayo Clinic. The survey consisted of 25 items asking respondents to select which clinical scenarios most often prompt literature searches as well as identify their most preferred knowledge resources. RESULTS: A total of 450 completed surveys were returned and analyzed (24% response rate). 48% of respondents perform literature searches for more than half of their patient interactions with 91% of all searches occurring either before or within 3 hours of the patient interaction. When a search is performed 57% of respondents prefer synthesized information sources as compared to only 13% who prefer original research. 82% of knowledge searches are performed on a workstation or office computer while just 10% occur on a mobile device or at home. CONCLUSION: Providers in our survey demonstrate a need to answer clinical questions on a regular basis, especially in the diagnosis and therapy domains. Responses suggest that most of these searches occur using synthesized knowledge sources in the patient care setting within a very short time from the patient interaction.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand the literature searching preferences of clinical providers we conducted an institution-wide survey assessing the most preferred knowledge searching techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey regarding literature searching preferences was sent to 1862 unique clinical providers throughout Mayo Clinic. The survey consisted of 25 items asking respondents to select which clinical scenarios most often prompt literature searches as well as identify their most preferred knowledge resources. RESULTS: A total of 450 completed surveys were returned and analyzed (24% response rate). 48% of respondents perform literature searches for more than half of their patient interactions with 91% of all searches occurring either before or within 3 hours of the patient interaction. When a search is performed 57% of respondents prefer synthesized information sources as compared to only 13% who prefer original research. 82% of knowledge searches are performed on a workstation or office computer while just 10% occur on a mobile device or at home. CONCLUSION: Providers in our survey demonstrate a need to answer clinical questions on a regular basis, especially in the diagnosis and therapy domains. Responses suggest that most of these searches occur using synthesized knowledge sources in the patient care setting within a very short time from the patient interaction.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electronic health records; evidence-based medicine; information storage and retrieval; point of care technology; user-computer interface
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Ana I González-González; Martin Dawes; José Sánchez-Mateos; Rosario Riesgo-Fuertes; Esperanza Escortell-Mayor; Teresa Sanz-Cuesta; Tomás Hernández-Fernández Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sally L Baxter; Lina Lander; Brian Clay; John Bell; Kristen Hansen; Amanda Walker; Ming Tai-Seale Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 2.342