The practice of evidence-based medicine involves the care of whole persons.

In this issue of the Journal, Dr. Fava posits that evidence-based medicine (EBM) was bound to fail. I share some of the concerns he expresses, yet I see more reasons for optimism. Having been on rounds with both Drs. Engel and Sackett, I reckon they would have agreed more than they disagreed. Their central teaching was the compassionate and well-informed care of sick persons. The model that emerged from these rounds was that patient care could be both person-centered and evidence-based, that clinical judgment was essential to both, and the decisions could and should be shared. Both clinicians and patients can bring knowledge from several sources into the shared decision making process in the clinical encounter, including evidence from clinical care research. I thank Dr. Fava for expressing legitimate doubts and providing useful criticism, yet I am cautiously optimistic that the model of EBM described here is robust enough to meet the challenges and is not doomed to fail.

Local development of MCQ tests for evidence-based medicine and clinical decision making can be successful.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the design of multiple-choice item (MCQ) tests of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical decision making (CDM) have not been published. PURPOSE AND METHODS: We describe a strategy to develop an EBM/CDM MCQ test database guided by educational theory and used psychometric analyses, including reliability, validity, and item analyses, to judge the strategy's success. RESULTS: The internal consistency reliability of tests derived from the database was in the good-to-excellent range (0.74-0.95) and test-retest reliability was fair (0.51). One test discriminated across three levels of EBM/CDM learners (discriminant validity). Tests also predictively correlated with other medical school assessments according to theory (convergent and discriminant validity). The items were infrequently misclassified, had statistics close to historical standards, and were acceptable after no more than one round of revisions. CONCLUSIONS: Our strategy for developing an EBM/CDM MCQ database was successful and tests derived from it can be flexibly sampled to assess different EBM/CDM knowledge domains and three levels of EBM/CDM learners. Assuming the availability of similar resources to support its application, this strategy should be replicable at other settings.

Basic science right, not basic science lite: medical education at a crossroad.

This perspective is a counterpoint to Dr. Brass' article, Basic biomedical sciences and the future of medical education: implications for internal medicine. The authors review development of the US medical education system as an introduction to a discussion of Dr. Brass' perspectives. The authors agree that sound scientific foundations and skill in critical thinking are important and that effective educational strategies to improve foundational science education should be implemented. Unfortunately, many students do not perceive the relevance of basic science education to clinical practice.The authors cite areas of disagreement. They believe it is unlikely that the importance of basic sciences will be diminished by contemporary directions in medical education and planned modifications of USMLE. Graduates' diminished interest in internal medicine is unlikely from changes in basic science education.Thoughtful changes in education provide the opportunity to improve understanding of fundamental sciences, the process of scientific inquiry, and translation of that knowledge to clinical practice.

Evidence in the learning organization.

BACKGROUND: Organizational leaders in business and medicine have been experiencing a similar dilemma: how to ensure that their organizational members are adopting work innovations in a timely fashion. Organizational leaders in healthcare have attempted to resolve this dilemma by offering specific solutions, such as evidence-based medicine (EBM), but organizations are still not systematically adopting evidence-based practice innovations as rapidly as expected by policy-makers (the knowing-doing gap problem). Some business leaders have adopted a systems-based perspective, called the learning organization (LO), to address a similar dilemma. Three years ago, the Society of General Internal Medicine's Evidence-based Medicine Task Force began an inquiry to integrate the EBM and LO concepts into one model to address the knowing-doing gap problem. METHODS: During the model development process, the authors searched several databases for relevant LO frameworks and their related concepts by using a broad search strategy. To identify the key LO frameworks and consolidate them into one model, the authors used consensus-based decision-making and a narrative thematic synthesis guided by several qualitative criteria. The authors subjected the model to external, independent review and improved upon its design with this feedback. RESULTS: The authors found seven LO frameworks particularly relevant to evidence-based practice innovations in organizations. The authors describe their interpretations of these frameworks for healthcare organizations, the process they used to integrate the LO frameworks with EBM principles, and the resulting Evidence in the Learning Organization (ELO) model. They also provide a health organization scenario to illustrate ELO concepts in application. CONCLUSION: The authors intend, by sharing the LO frameworks and the ELO model, to help organizations identify their capacities to learn and share knowledge about evidence-based practice innovations. The ELO model will need further validation and improvement through its use in organizational settings and applied health services research.

We should overcome the barriers to evidence-based clinical diagnosis!

BACKGROUND: The wise integration of evidence from health care research into diagnostic decisions could influence patient outcomes by improving clinical diagnosis, reducing unnecessary testing, and minimizing diagnostic error. Yet for many, this promise does not match reality. Here, we collect and categorize barriers to the use of health care research evidence in diagnostic decisions, examine their potential consequences, and propose potential ways to overcome these impediments. METHODS: Barriers were derived from observations over years of trying to inform clinical diagnoses with research evidence, and from interpretations of the literature. RESULTS: Barriers are categorized into those related to the evidence itself, those related to diagnosticians, and those related to health care systems. Tentative solutions are proffered. Data are lacking on the frequency and impact of the identified barriers, as well as on the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to the sensible use of evidence from health care research in clinical diagnosis can be identified and categorized, and possible solutions can be imagined. We could, and should, muster the will to overcome these barriers.

Killing Bugs at the Bedside: a prospective hospital survey of how frequently personal digital assistants provide expert recommendations in the treatment of infectious diseases.

BACKGROUND: Personal Digital Assistants (PDAS) are rapidly becoming popular tools in the assistance of managing hospitalized patients, but little is known about how often expert recommendations are available for the treatment of infectious diseases in hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine how often PDAs could provide expert recommendations for the management of infectious diseases in patients admitted to a general medicine teaching service. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study SETTING: Internal medicine resident teaching service at an urban hospital in Dayton, Ohio PATIENTS: 212 patients (out of 883 patients screened) were identified with possible infectious etiologies as the cause for admission to the hospital. MEASUREMENTS: Patients were screened prospectively from July 2002 until October 2002 for infectious conditions as the cause of their admissions. 5 PDA programs were assessed in October 2002 to see if treatment recommendations were available for managing these patients. The programs were then reassessed in January 2004 to evaluate how the latest editions of the software would perform under the same context as the previous year. RESULTS: PDAs provided treatment recommendations in at least one of the programs for 100% of the patients admitted over the 4 month period in the 2004 evaluation. Each of the programs reviewed improved from 2002 to 2004, with five of the six programs offering treatment recommendations for over 90% of patients in the study. CONCLUSION: Current PDA software provides expert recommendations for a great majority of general internal medicine patients presenting to the hospital with infectious conditions.

Making medical research clinically friendly: a communication-based conceptual framework.

CONTEXT: It often takes a long time before the results of medical research are actually used by health care practitioners in day-to-day clinical settings. This problem, referred to as "the evidence-to-practice gap", has significant implications for patient health care. Practitioners have difficulty keeping up with the latest information in part because it is reported in hundreds of journals that may not be easily accessed and understood. APPROACH: This essay conceptualizes the evidence-to-practice gap as a communication problem and suggests how academic research can be translated into messages that are easier for practitioners to access, comprehend and incorporate into their medical practice. A "translation framework" shows the importance of targeting messages to specific audiences and provides a communication-based conceptual approach for summarizing research for clinicians. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Targeting the results of academic research to practitioners will decrease the time it takes for patients to benefit from the latest medical evidence. Translation guidelines can help health researchers write more effectively for both academic and practitioner audiences. Since the evidence-to-practice gap is a systemic problem that begins with how we train our health researchers, educators should consider addressing this topic in the health professions classroom. The framework presented here can serve as the basis for an instructional unit on interpreting and reporting research findings. Finally, information technology can play a much larger role in the communication process because of the enormous advantages of quick access and data organization that computers and the Internet provide. Practitioner-targeted research summaries could be made available on government or not-for-profit sponsored websites as well as by journals themselves. Funding opportunities exist for research that focuses on how technology can help improve health care, and so the time is right for health researchers to investigate ways of making their studies more accessible and quickly usable via web-based distribution. The potential of medical science should not be limited by an information delivery system that we have the knowledge, expertise and resources to improve.

Could our pretest probabilities become evidence based? A prospective survey of hospital practice.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the proportion of patients on our clinical service who presented with clinical problems for which research evidence was available to inform estimates of pretest probability. We also aimed to discern whether any of this evidence was of sufficient quality that we would want to use it for clinical decision making. DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive case series and literature survey. SETTING: Inpatient medical service of a university-affiliated Veterans' Affairs hospital in south Texas. PATIENTS: Patients admitted during the 3 study months for diagnostic evaluation. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' active clinical problems were identified prospectively and recorded at the time of discharge, transfer, or death. We electronically searched medline and hand-searched bibliographies to find citations that reported research evidence about the frequency of underlying diseases that cause these clinical problems. We critically appraised selected citations and ranked them on a hierarchy of evidence. RESULTS: We admitted 122 patients for diagnostic evaluation, in whom we identified 45 different principal clinical problems. For 35 of the 45 problems (78%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 66% to 90%), we found citations that qualified as disease probability evidence. Thus, 111 of our 122 patients (91%; 95% CI, 86% to 96%) had clinical problems for which evidence was available in the medical literature. CONCLUSIONS: During 3 months on our hospital medicine service, almost all of the patients admitted for diagnostic evaluation had clinical problems for which evidence is available to guide our estimates of pretest probability. If confirmed by others, these data suggest that clinicians' pretest probabilities could become evidence based.