Literature DB >> 7853070

A randomized crossover trial of Quick Medical Reference (QMR) as a teaching tool for medical interns.

C M Bacchus1, C Quinton, K O'Rourke, A S Detsky.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of Quick Medical Reference (QMR) to usual educational tools improves an intern's performance in managing clinical cases that test diagnostic and investigative skills.
DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, single-blinded crossover study.
SETTING: Tertiary care teaching hospital.
SUBJECTS: Comprehensive medical interns who are proficient in the use of QMR. INTERVENTION: A total of 16 interns trained in the use of QMR were randomized to work up a total of six diagnostically challenging cases, three using medical textbooks plus access to QMR and three using textbooks and no access to QMR. MEASUREMENTS: The interns provided their solutions to the cases, which consisted of the differential diagnosis and investigations. They were scored by comparing their answers with the consensus answers provided by subspecialty consultants. For each intern, the difference in mean total scores with and without QMR was calculated.
RESULTS: The mean difference in total scores was 7.2% benefit (p < 0.05, 95% CI = 0.05 to 14.4) using QMR. The beneficial difference was driven mainly by improvement in diagnostic scores, with the mean difference being 11.6% (p = 0.01, 95% CI = 2.4 to 20.8). Regression analysis showed that the more difficult the case, the greater the benefit of QMR.
CONCLUSIONS: Quick Medical Reference may be a useful adjunct to interns in formulating diagnostic strategies for difficult clinical cases. However, since optimal conditions were chosen for QMR benefit in this study design, the small benefit in test scores must be weighed against the time required to teach QMR to interns.

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7853070     DOI: 10.1007/bf02600304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  8 in total

Review 1.  Competence and performance: two different concepts in the assessment of quality of medical care.

Authors:  J J Rethans; Y van Leeuwen; R Drop; C van der Vleuten; F Sturmans
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 2.267

Review 2.  Written case simulations: do they predict physicians' behavior?

Authors:  T V Jones; M S Gerrity; J Earp
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Medical expert systems--knowledge tools for physicians.

Authors:  E H Shortliffe
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1986-12

4.  Quick medical reference (QMR) for diagnostic assistance.

Authors:  R Miller; F E Masarie; J D Myers
Journal:  MD Comput       Date:  1986 Sep-Oct

5.  Problems in the handling of clinical and research evidence by medical practitioners.

Authors:  R B Haynes; D L Sackett; P Tugwell
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1983-10

6.  Information needs in office practice: are they being met?

Authors:  D G Covell; G C Uman; P R Manning
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1985-10       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Simulated patients in general practice: a different look at the consultation.

Authors:  J J Rethans; C P van Boven
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-03-28

8.  A computer-assisted medical diagnostic consultation service. Implementation and prospective evaluation of a prototype.

Authors:  R A Bankowitz; M A McNeil; S M Challinor; R C Parker; W N Kapoor; R A Miller
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1989-05-15       Impact factor: 25.391

  8 in total
  6 in total

1.  Effectiveness of the Quick Medical Reference as a diagnostic tool.

Authors:  J B Lemaire; J P Schaefer; L A Martin; P Faris; M D Ainslie; R D Hull
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-09-21       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Influence of case and physician characteristics on perceptions of decision support systems.

Authors:  E S Berner; R S Maisiak
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Effects of a decision support system on physicians' diagnostic performance.

Authors:  E S Berner; R S Maisiak; C G Cobbs; O D Taunton
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Benefits of computer diagnostic assistants.

Authors:  M E Gozum
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Are computer diagnostic assistants useful tools for clinicians and educators?

Authors:  D E Dewitt; A S Kanter
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 6.  The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Nicholas Riches; Maria Panagioti; Rahul Alam; Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi; Stephen Campbell; Aneez Esmail; Peter Bower
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.