Author: Brian S McGowan, PhD

Abstract
Objective To determine if the PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE clinical queries (which were developed in the publishing year 2000, for the purpose categories therapy, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, and clinical prediction guides) perform as well when searching in current publishing years.

Methods A gold standard database of recently published research literature was created using the McMaster health knowledge refinery (http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU_McMaster_HKR.aspx) and its continuously updated database, McMaster PLUS (http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU_McMaster_PLUS_projects.aspx). This database contains articles from over 120 clinical journals that are tagged for meeting or not meeting criteria for scientific merit and clinical relevance. The clinical queries sensitive (‘broad’) and specific (‘narrow’) search filters were tested in this gold standard database, and sensitivity and specificity were calculated and compared with those originally reported for the clinical queries.

Results In all cases, the sensitivity of the highly sensitive search filters and the specificity of the highly specific search filters did not differ substantively when comparing results derived in 2000 with those derived in a more current database. In addition, in all cases, the specificities for the highly sensitive search filters and the sensitivities for the highly specific search filters remained above 50% when testing them in the current database.

Discussion These results are reassuring for modern-day searchers. The clinical queries that were derived in the year 2000 perform equally well a decade later.

Conclusion The PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE clinical queries have been revalidated and remain a useful public resource for searching the world’s medical literature for research that is most relevant to clinical care.

via MEDLINE clinical queries are robust when searching in recent publishing years — Wilczynski et al. 20 (2): 363 — Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.

Abstract
Objective To examine information flow, a vital component of a patient’s care and outcomes, in a sample of multiple hospital nursing units to uncover potential sources of error and opportunities for systematic improvement.

Design This was a qualitative study of a sample of eight medical–surgical nursing units from four diverse hospitals in one US state. We conducted direct work observations of nursing staff’s communication patterns for entire shifts (8 or 12 h) for a total of 200 h and gathered related documentation artifacts for analyses. Data were coded using qualitative content analysis procedures and then synthesized and organized thematically to characterize current practices.

Results Three major themes emerged from the analyses, which represent serious vulnerabilities in the flow of patient care information during nurse hand-offs and to the entire interdisciplinary team across time and settings. The three themes are: (1) variation in nurse documentation and communication; (2) the absence of a centralized care overview in the patient’s electronic health record, ie, easily accessible by the entire care team; and (3) rarity of interdisciplinary communication.

Conclusion The care information flow vulnerabilities are a catalyst for multiple types of serious and undetectable clinical errors. We have two major recommendations to address the gaps: (1) to standardize the format, content, and words used to document core information, such as the plan of care, and make this easily accessible to all team members; (2) to conduct extensive usability testing to ensure that tools in the electronic health record help the disconnected interdisciplinary team members to maintain a shared understanding of the patient’s plan.

via Challenges to nurses’ efforts of retrieving, documenting, and communicating patient care information — Keenan et al. 20 (2): 245 — Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.