Kishore L Jayakumar1, Julia A Lavenberg2, Matthew D Mitchell2, Jalpa A Doshi2,3,4, Brian Leas2, David R Goldmann2,3, Kendal Williams2,3, Patrick J Brennan2,3, Craig A Umscheid2,3,4,5,6,7. 1. University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Center for Evidence-based Practice, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Institute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospital evidence-based practice centers (EPCs) synthesize and disseminate evidence locally, but their impact on institutional decision making is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence synthesis activities and impact of a hospital EPC serving a large academic healthcare system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Descriptive analysis of the EPC's database of rapid systematic reviews since EPC inception (July 2006-June 2014), and survey of report requestors from the EPC's last 4 fiscal years. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive analyses examined requestor and report characteristics; questionnaire examined report usability, impact, and requestor satisfaction (higher scores on 5-point Likert scales reflected greater agreement). RESULTS: The EPC completed 249 evidence reviews since inception. The most common requestors were clinical departments (29%, n = 72), chief medical officers (19%, n = 47), and purchasing committees (14%, n = 35). The most common technologies reviewed were drugs (24%, n = 60), devices (19%, n = 48), and care processes (12%, n = 31). Mean report completion time was 70 days. Thirty reports (12%) informed computerized decision support interventions. More than half of reports (56%, n = 139) were completed in the last 4 fiscal years for 65 requestors. Of the 64 eligible participants, 46 responded (72%). Requestors were satisfied with the report (mean = 4.4), and agreed it was delivered promptly (mean = 4.4), answered the questions posed (mean = 4.3), and informed their final decision (mean = 4.1). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first examination of evidence synthesis activities by a hospital EPC in the United States. Our findings suggest hospital EPCs can efficiently synthesize and disseminate evidence addressing a range of clinical topics for diverse stakeholders, and can influence local decision making.
BACKGROUND: Hospital evidence-based practice centers (EPCs) synthesize and disseminate evidence locally, but their impact on institutional decision making is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence synthesis activities and impact of a hospital EPC serving a large academic healthcare system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Descriptive analysis of the EPC's database of rapid systematic reviews since EPC inception (July 2006-June 2014), and survey of report requestors from the EPC's last 4 fiscal years. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive analyses examined requestor and report characteristics; questionnaire examined report usability, impact, and requestor satisfaction (higher scores on 5-point Likert scales reflected greater agreement). RESULTS: The EPC completed 249 evidence reviews since inception. The most common requestors were clinical departments (29%, n = 72), chief medical officers (19%, n = 47), and purchasing committees (14%, n = 35). The most common technologies reviewed were drugs (24%, n = 60), devices (19%, n = 48), and care processes (12%, n = 31). Mean report completion time was 70 days. Thirty reports (12%) informed computerized decision support interventions. More than half of reports (56%, n = 139) were completed in the last 4 fiscal years for 65 requestors. Of the 64 eligible participants, 46 responded (72%). Requestors were satisfied with the report (mean = 4.4), and agreed it was delivered promptly (mean = 4.4), answered the questions posed (mean = 4.3), and informed their final decision (mean = 4.1). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first examination of evidence synthesis activities by a hospital EPC in the United States. Our findings suggest hospital EPCs can efficiently synthesize and disseminate evidence addressing a range of clinical topics for diverse stakeholders, and can influence local decision making.
Authors: Julia G Lavenberg; Pamela Z Cacchione; Kishore L Jayakumar; Brian F Leas; Matthew D Mitchell; Nikhil K Mull; Craig A Umscheid Journal: Worldviews Evid Based Nurs Date: 2019-02-03 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Lisa Hartling; Jeanne-Marie Guise; Susanne Hempel; Robin Featherstone; Matthew D Mitchell; Makalapua L Motu'apuaka; Karen A Robinson; Karen Schoelles; Annette Totten; Evelyn Whitlock; Timothy J Wilt; Johanna Anderson; Elise Berliner; Aysegul Gozu; Elisabeth Kato; Robin Paynter; Craig A Umscheid Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2017-02-17
Authors: Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Maya Jeyaraman; Abdelhamid Attia; Hesham G Al-Inany; Mauricio Ferri; Mohammed T Ansari; Chantelle M Garritty; Kenneth Bond; Susan L Norris Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 3.240