Knowledge and use of evidence-based medicine in daily practice by health professionals: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare professionals are expected to firmly ground their practice in sound evidence. That implies that they know and use evidence-based medicine (EBM). In this study, our aim was to know how often health professionals actually made use of EBM in their daily practice. DESIGN: A questionnaire survey of healthcare professionals. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals who attended six university postgraduate courses. 226 answered the questionnaire (144 physicians, 64 nurses and 24 pharmacists; response rate 63.3%). SETTING: 56.5% of respondents worked in hospitals (mostly non-teaching), 25.0% in nursing homes and 10.2% in primary care. All participants were French-speaking and lived in France or Switzerland. MEASURES: Declared degree of knowledge and use of EBM, use of EBM-related information sources. RESULTS: Overall, 14.2% of respondents declared to use EBM regularly in their daily practice and 15.6% declared to use EBM only occasionally. The remaining respondents declared they: knew about EBM but did not use it (33.1%), had just heard about EBM (31.9%) or did not know what EBM is (4.0%). Concerning the use of EBM-related information sources, 83.4% declared to use at least monthly (or more often) clinical guidelines, 47.1% PubMed, 21.3% the Cochrane Library and 6.4% other medical databases.Fewer pharmacists (12%) declared to use EBM in their practice than nurses (22%) or doctors (36%). No difference appeared when analysed by gender, work setting or years after graduation. The most frequent obstacles perceived for the practice of EBM were: lack of general knowledge about EBM, lack of skills for critical appraisal and lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of health professionals-with differences between physicians, nurses and pharmacists-declare to regularly use EBM in their professional practice. A larger proportion appears to be interested in EBM but seems to be deterred by their lack of knowledge, skills and personal time.

Predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium in community-dwelling older adults admitted to hospital with this condition: A prospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Factors associated with delirium among community-dwelling older adults have been poorly studied. Our aim was to describe the prevalence of predisposing and precipitating factors for delirium among patients admitted for delirium and to assess whether these factors were appropriately recognized at the first patient assessment at hospital. METHODS: Consecutive community-dwelling individuals admitted to three geriatric acute care units with a confirmed initial diagnosis of delirium were prospectively included. An independent investigator recorded, using a predefined form, any acute medical condition considered by the attending geriatrician to be a precipitating factor, at the first patient assessment and at the end of his stay in acute care. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were included, 80.0% had a pre-existing cognitive or neurological disorder, or both. The most frequent precipitating factor found were infections (49.0% of all patients, mainly lung and urinary tract infections), followed by drugs (30.8%), dehydration (26.4%) and electrolytic disturbances (18.7%, mostly hyponatremia). 91% of patients had a cerebral imagery, but acute neurological conditions were found in only 18.3%. Fewer precipitating factors were found at first than at final assessment (1.4 (95%CI 1.3-1.6) versus 1.9 (95%CI 1.8-2.0) respectively, p<0.001). This difference was significant for all main categories of precipitating factors. CONCLUSIONS: Infections, followed by drugs and hydro-electrolytic disorders seem to be the most frequent precipitating factors for delirium in community-dwelling elderly individuals. Early diagnostic and management of precipitating factors in these patients should be improved, as a significant number of them are missed at the initial assessment.