A comparative evaluation of three point-of-care tools by registered nurses.

Objective: This study compared three point-of-care tools (PoCTs) to determine which PoCT was rated highest based on key features and characteristics by registered nurses. Methods: The PoCTs reviewed were Nursing Reference Center Plus, ClinicalKey for Nursing, and UpToDate. Nurses were asked to use each PoCT to answer three clinical questions and then rate their experience based on the following areas: currency, relevancy, layout, navigation, labeling, and use of filters. They were also asked to indicate their familiarity with each PoCT, their overall opinions, and demographic information. Results: Seventy-six nurses completed the entire survey. Ratings of PoCTs did not differ by participant characteristics. Participants were most familiar with UpToDate, and average ratings were similar across all three PoCTs. Answers to open-ended questions suggested that nurses' experiences searching and locating relevant information to address clinical questions varied and that brand recognition might have impacted preference. Discussion: None of the PoCTs was significantly preferred over the others, nor received high ratings, which suggests that organizations need to survey their nurses to determine which PoCT is preferred by their staff. Findings also suggest that institutional priorities can guide the decision whether a library should license multiple PoCTs, nursing, and/or non-nursing specific PoCTs. Research is needed to understand how PoCTs could better meet the information needs of registered nurses. Librarians should learn more about what types of information nurses are seeking and explore opportunities to educate nurses on how to better utilize PoCTs for their practice.

UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy, time to answer, user confidence, and user satisfaction between UpToDate and DynaMed (formerly DynaMed Plus), which are two popular point-of-care information tools. METHODS: A crossover study was conducted with medical residents in obstetrics and gynecology and family medicine at the University of Toronto in order to compare the speed and accuracy with which they retrieved answers to clinical questions using UpToDate and DynaMed. Experiments took place between February 2017 and December 2019. Following a short tutorial on how to use each tool and completion of a background survey, participants attempted to find answers to two clinical questions in each tool. Time to answer each question, the chosen answer, confidence score, and satisfaction score were recorded for each clinical question. RESULTS: A total of 57 residents took part in the experiment, including 32 from family medicine and 25 from obstetrics and gynecology. Accuracy in clinical answers was equal between UpToDate (average 1.35 out of 2) and DynaMed (average 1.36 out of 2). However, time to answer was 2.5 minutes faster in UpToDate compared to DynaMed. Participants were also more confident and satisfied with their answers in UpToDate compared to DynaMed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a preference for UpToDate and a higher confidence in responses, the accuracy of clinical answers in UpToDate was equal to those in DynaMed. Previous exposure to UpToDate likely played a major role in participants' preferences. More research in this area is recommended.

Development and examination of a rubric for evaluating point-of-care medical applications for mobile devices.

The rapid development and updates of mobile medical resource applications (apps) highlight the need for an evaluation tool to assess the content of these resources. The purpose of the study was to develop and test a new evaluation rubric for medical resource apps. The evaluation rubric was designed using existing literature and through a collaborative effort between a hospital and an academic librarian. Testing found scores ranging from 23% to 88% for the apps. The evaluation rubric proved able to distinguish levels of quality within each content component of the apps, demonstrating potential for standardization of medical resource app evaluations.

Provider perspectives on a point-of-care tool to facilitate patient-centered contraceptive care among Latina/x patients in Baltimore, MD.

Objectives: To explore clinician perspectives on the development, utility, and feasibility of a provider-facing point-of-care tool to assist in provision of patient-centered contraceptive care for Latina/x patients in Baltimore, MD. Methods: We conducted 25 semi-structured qualitative interviews with a sample of clinicians who provide contraceptive care to Latina/x patients. An interview guide was developed based on prior research related to patient-centered care and extant point-of-care tools. Transcripts were independently coded by two study team members and analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. Results: Four themes emerged from the data: (1) clinician perception of a need for a tool to facilitate patient-centered contraceptive care, (2) concern for tool burden and burnout, (3) desire for tool ease of use, and (4) a need for cultural awareness during tool development to avoid bias and typecasting. Conclusions: A provider-facing, point-of-care tool to facilitate patient-centered contraceptive counseling was acceptable among providers, provided the tool is easy to use and promotes cultural awareness. Innovation: In the current era of more limited reproductive choice across the U.S., the need and support for non-coercive, patient-centered contraceptive care is timely. A provider-facing, point-of-care tool can facilitate the provision of patient-centered care among clinicians proving contraceptive counseling to Latina/s.

Performance of a Web-Based Reference Database With Natural Language Searching Capabilities: Usability Evaluation of DynaMed and Micromedex With Watson.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based point-of-care information (POCI) tools can facilitate patient safety and care by helping clinicians to answer disease state and drug information questions in less time and with less effort. However, these tools may also be visually challenging to navigate or lack the comprehensiveness needed to sufficiently address a medical issue. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to collect clinicians' feedback and directly observe their use of the combined POCI tool DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson, now known as DynaMedex. EBSCO partnered with IBM Watson Health, now known as Merative, to develop the combined tool as a resource for clinicians. We aimed to identify areas for refinement based on participant feedback and examine participant perceptions to inform further development. METHODS: Participants (N=43) within varying clinical roles and specialties were recruited from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, between August 10, 2021, and December 16, 2021, to take part in usability sessions aimed at evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of, as well as satisfaction with, the DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson tool. Usability testing methods, including think aloud and observations of user behavior, were used to identify challenges regarding the combined tool. Data collection included measurements of time on task; task ease; satisfaction with the answer; posttest feedback on likes, dislikes, and perceived reliability of the tool; and interest in recommending the tool to a colleague. RESULTS: On a 7-point Likert scale, pharmacists rated ease (mean 5.98, SD 1.38) and satisfaction (mean 6.31, SD 1.34) with the combined POCI tool higher than the physicians, nurse practitioner, and physician's assistants (ease: mean 5.57, SD 1.64, and satisfaction: mean 5.82, SD 1.60). Pharmacists spent longer (mean 2 minutes, 26 seconds, SD 1 minute, 41 seconds) on average finding an answer to their question than the physicians, nurse practitioner, and physician's assistants (mean 1 minute, 40 seconds, SD 1 minute, 23 seconds). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the tool performed well, but this usability evaluation identified multiple opportunities for improvement that would help inexperienced users.

The contested meanings of race and ethnicity in medical research: A case study of the DynaMed Point of Care tool.

Although the use of race and ethnicity for diagnostic purposes remains a controversial practice given the socially contingent meaning of the terms (Bowker and Star, 1999), health researchers continue to report possible relationships between health outcomes and race/ethnicity in the literature. As summaries of these types of studies are incorporated into commercial databases designed to provide medical practitioners with actionable information, there is a risk that the algorithms that drive the databases may unintentionally incorporate racist biases (O'Neil, 2016) in search reports that use race and ethnicity as query terms to identify findings to help in the diagnosis and treatment of particular patients. As a first step to unpacking this risk, we conducted a content analysis of the records and related citation trails in DynaMed's Point of Care (PoC) tool that refer to racial and ethnic research findings. Our analysis demonstrates that DynaMed does not control for how meanings of race and ethnicity are constructed in its entries, does not always accurately represent the nuanced and contingent nature of the findings about race/ethnicity that it cites, and relies on sources that are not always consistent with the 'evidence-based' criterion that the company self-promotes as a feature of its PoC tool. We conclude that, by failing to acknowledge the complex and contradictory ways that race and ethnicity may, or may not, correlate with the risk of a medical ailment, algorithmically-driven tools that use these concepts to establish group risks for medical ailments may unintentionally work to 'resuscitat[e] biological theories of race by modernizing old racial typologies that were based on observations of physical differences with cutting-edge genomic research' (Roberts, 2011: 567).

Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: With advances in mobile technology, accessibility of clinical resources at the point of care has increased. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to identify if six selected mobile point-of-care tools meet the needs of clinicians in internal medicine. Point-of-care tools were evaluated for breadth of coverage, ease of use, and quality. METHODS: Six point-of-care tools were evaluated utilizing four different devices (two smartphones and two tablets). Breadth of coverage was measured using select International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes if information on summary, etiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis was provided. Quality measures included treatment and diagnostic inline references and individual and application time stamping. Ease of use covered search within topic, table of contents, scrolling, affordance, connectivity, and personal accounts. Analysis of variance based on the rank of score was used. RESULTS: Breadth of coverage was similar among Medscape (mean 6.88), Uptodate (mean 6.51), DynaMedPlus (mean 6.46), and EvidencePlus (mean 6.41) (P>.05) with DynaMed (mean 5.53) and Epocrates (mean 6.12) scoring significantly lower (P<.05). Ease of use had DynaMedPlus with the highest score, and EvidencePlus was lowest (6.0 vs 4.0, respectively, P<.05). For quality, reviewers rated the same score (4.00) for all tools except for Medscape, which was rated lower (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: For breadth of coverage, most point-of-care tools were similar with the exception of DynaMed. For ease of use, only UpToDate and DynaMedPlus allow for search within a topic. All point-of-care tools have remote access with the exception of UpToDate and Essential Evidence Plus. All tools except Medscape covered criteria for quality evaluation. Overall, there was no significant difference between the point-of-care tools with regard to coverage on common topics used by internal medicine clinicians. Selection of point-of-care tools is highly dependent on individual preference based on ease of use and cost of the application.

Moving Evidence Forward: Addressing the Barriers to Evidence-Based Practice in Radiotherapy.

Improving the quality of care is an ongoing challenge for medical professionals in the Canadian healthcare system. One generally accepted method of improving health outcomes has been the clinical implementation of evidence-based practice. Historically, the barrier in clinical settings has been efficient access to reliable information. Point-of-care (P-O-C) tools have been proven to be effective and help promote evidence-based practice in professions outside radiation therapy. To examine the potential usefulness of a P-O-C tool for radiation therapists, a Canada-wide survey was distributed to practicing radiation therapists. Results showed a clear desire by radiation therapists for a P-O-C tool. Sixty-nine percent of surveyed practitioners stated that having a practitioner-focused evidence resource would change their daily work practice, but stipulated that the proper integration of resources into the day-to-day workplace is crucial to supporting clinical evidence-based decision-making. Study participants also highlighted several barriers to their ability to do so, including access to evidence-based data, differing organizational research philosophies and practices, lack of resources to promote discipline-specific practitioner research, and necessary integration of educational and mentoring programs into daily practices. Although they have not been found to be an all-encompassing remedy, P-O-C tools have the potential to aid front-line healthcare providers in fostering evidence-based practice.