Measuring Practicing Clinicians' Information Literacy. An Exploratory Analysis in the Context of Panel Management.

BACKGROUND: As healthcare moves towards technology-driven population health management, clinicians must adopt complex digital platforms to access health information and document care. OBJECTIVES: This study explored information literacy, a set of skills required to effectively navigate population health information systems, among primary care providers in one Veterans' Affairs (VA) medical center. METHODS: Information literacy was assessed during an 8-month randomized trial that tested a population health (panel) management intervention. Providers were asked about their use and comfort with two VA digital tools for panel management at baseline, 16 weeks, and post-intervention. An 8-item scale (range 0-40) was used to measure information literacy (Cronbach's α=0.84). Scores between study arms and provider types were compared using paired t-tests and ANOVAs. Associations between self-reported digital tool use and information literacy were measured via Pearson's correlations. RESULTS: Providers showed moderate levels of information literacy (M= 27.4, SD 6.5). There were no significant differences in mean information literacy between physicians (M=26.4, SD 6.7) and nurses (M=30.5, SD 5.2, p=0.57 for difference), or between intervention (M=28.4, SD 6.5) and control groups (M=25.1, SD 6.2, p=0.12 for difference). Information literacy was correlated with higher rates of self-reported information system usage (r=0.547, p=0.001). Clinicians identified data access, accuracy, and interpretability as potential information literacy barriers. CONCLUSIONS: While exploratory in nature, cautioning generalizability, the study suggests that measuring and improving clinicians' information literacy may play a significant role in the implementation and use of digital information tools, as these tools are rapidly being deployed to enhance communication among care teams, improve health care outcomes, and reduce overall costs.

The status of evolutionary medicine education in North American medical schools.

BACKGROUND: Medical and public health scientists are using evolution to devise new strategies to solve major health problems. But based on a 2003 survey, medical curricula may not adequately prepare physicians to evaluate and extend these advances. This study assessed the change in coverage of evolution in North American medical schools since 2003 and identified opportunities for enriching medical education. METHODS: In 2013, curriculum deans for all North American medical schools were invited to rate curricular coverage and perceived importance of 12 core principles, the extent of anticipated controversy from adding evolution, and the usefulness of 13 teaching resources. Differences between schools were assessed by Pearson's chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Spearman's correlation. Open-ended questions sought insight into perceived barriers and benefits. RESULTS: Despite repeated follow-up, 60 schools (39%) responded to the survey. There was no evidence of sample bias. The three evolutionary principles rated most important were antibiotic resistance, environmental mismatch, and somatic selection in cancer. While importance and coverage of principles were correlated (r = 0.76, P < 0.01), coverage (at least moderate) lagged behind importance (at least moderate) by an average of 21% (SD = 6%). Compared to 2003, a range of evolutionary principles were covered by 4 to 74% more schools. Nearly half (48%) of responders anticipated igniting controversy at their medical school if they added evolution to their curriculum. The teaching resources ranked most useful were model test questions and answers, case studies, and model curricula for existing courses/rotations. Limited resources (faculty expertise) were cited as the major barrier to adding more evolution, but benefits included a deeper understanding and improved patient care. CONCLUSION: North American medical schools have increased the evolution content in their curricula over the past decade. However, coverage is not commensurate with importance. At a few medical schools, anticipated controversy impedes teaching more evolution. Efforts to improve evolution education in medical schools should be directed toward boosting faculty expertise and crafting resources that can be easily integrated into existing curricula.

You and me and the computer makes three: variations in exam room use of the electronic health record.

Challenges persist on how to effectively integrate the electronic health record (EHR) into patient visits and clinical workflow, while maintaining patient-centered care. Our goal was to identify variations in, barriers to, and facilitators of the use of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) EHR in ambulatory care workflow in order better to understand how to integrate the EHR into clinical work. We observed and interviewed 20 ambulatory care providers across three geographically distinct VA medical centers. Analysis revealed several variations in, associated barriers to, and facilitators of EHR use corresponding to different units of analysis: computer interface, team coordination/workflow, and organizational. We discuss our findings in the context of different units of analysis and connect variations in EHR use to various barriers and facilitators. Findings from this study may help inform the design of the next generation of EHRs for the VA and other healthcare systems.