RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Academic detailing is an evidence-based strategy to improve patient care. Efforts to understand the intervention and to use it strategically require an understanding of its important characteristics. A recent systematic review and a subsequent reporting framework call for more accurate and complete reporting of continuing medical education interventions. OBJECTIVES: Building on a previously published systematic review of 69 studies, we sought to determine how an expanded set of 106 academic detailing studies, including many recently published articles, fared with respect to reporting of important data about this intervention. METHODS: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (clinical) database, and Scopus, from which we identified 38 additional randomized controlled trials published from August 2007 through March 2013. Including the original 69 studies, we abstracted 106 available English-language studies and quantitatively analyzed information about 4 important characteristics of academic detailing: content of visits, clinicians being visited, communication process underlying visits, and outreach workers making visits. RESULTS: We found considerable variation (36.5%-100%) in the extent of reporting intervention characteristics, especially about the communication process underlying visits and the outreach workers making visits. The best overall documentation of intervention characteristics of any single study was 68%. Results also demonstrate wide variation in the approach to academic detailing. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the need for a standardized approach to collecting and reporting data about academic detailing interventions. Our findings also highlight opportunities for using academic detailing more effectively in research and quality-improvement efforts.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Emergency medicine practitioners (EMPs) often provide 'medical clearance' before evaluation by a psychiatry practitioner (PP). We set out to determine the level of agreement between EMP impression and disposition as determined by PPs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study in an urban tertiary teaching hospital emergency department. We collected data from February to April 2011. We used a convenience sample of patient encounters evaluated by EMPs and subsequent referral for psychiatric evaluation. We asked EMPs whether they thought the patients would be admitted or discharged following psychiatric evaluation, and if discharged, whether to outpatient psychiatric follow-up or to no follow-up. EMPs were asked to base their opinion upon their general impression following their brief medical evaluation. They were not given guidelines on which to base their decision. The EMPs were blind to PP decisions. The κ-statistic was used to calculate agreement between the EMP's impression and disposition decision by the PP. We excluded patients who were acutely intoxicated, in police custody, or lived in an extended care facility. RESULTS: We included 156 patient encounters over the study period and had complete data for 152 encounters. Of these, 86 (55%) were admitted, 46 (30%) were discharged with no specific psychiatric follow-up, and 20 (13%) were discharged with a follow-up plan. EMPs predicted the exact disposition in 77/152 (51%) cases (κ=0.264, 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.333). Agreement was higher for admitted patients, with EMPs predicting inpatient admission for 57/86 (66%) of these patients. Other factors associated with higher agreement scores were years in emergency medicine practice by the EMP and suicidal ideation by the patient. CONCLUSION: EMPs did not reliably predict psychiatric disposition decisions based on clinical 'gestalt'. Future research will focus on clinical guidelines to help EMPs better independently assess need for emergency psychiatric services.
