Premium
Evidence synthesis activities of a hospital evidence‐based practice center and impact on hospital decision making
Author(s) -
Jayakumar Kishore L.,
Lavenberg Julia A.,
Mitchell Matthew D.,
Doshi Jalpa A.,
Leas Brian,
Goldmann David R.,
Williams Kendal,
Brennan Patrick J.,
Umscheid Craig A.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of hospital medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.128
H-Index - 65
eISSN - 1553-5606
pISSN - 1553-5592
DOI - 10.1002/jhm.2498
Subject(s) - medicine , usability , descriptive statistics , family medicine , psychological intervention , health care , clinical decision support system , likert scale , fiscal year , nursing , psychology , computer science , business , developmental psychology , statistics , mathematics , human–computer interaction , economics , economic growth , finance
BACKGROUND Hospital evidence‐based practice centers (EPCs) synthesize and disseminate evidence locally, but their impact on institutional decision making is unclear. OBJECTIVE To assess the evidence synthesis activities and impact of a hospital EPC serving a large academic healthcare system. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Descriptive analysis of the EPC's database of rapid systematic reviews since EPC inception (July 2006–June 2014), and survey of report requestors from the EPC's last 4 fiscal years. MEASUREMENTS Descriptive analyses examined requestor and report characteristics; questionnaire examined report usability, impact, and requestor satisfaction (higher scores on 5‐point Likert scales reflected greater agreement). RESULTS The EPC completed 249 evidence reviews since inception. The most common requestors were clinical departments (29%, n = 72), chief medical officers (19%, n = 47), and purchasing committees (14%, n = 35). The most common technologies reviewed were drugs (24%, n = 60), devices (19%, n = 48), and care processes (12%, n = 31). Mean report completion time was 70 days. Thirty reports (12%) informed computerized decision support interventions. More than half of reports (56%, n = 139) were completed in the last 4 fiscal years for 65 requestors. Of the 64 eligible participants, 46 responded (72%). Requestors were satisfied with the report (mean = 4.4), and agreed it was delivered promptly (mean = 4.4), answered the questions posed (mean = 4.3), and informed their final decision (mean = 4.1). CONCLUSIONS This is the first examination of evidence synthesis activities by a hospital EPC in the United States. Our findings suggest hospital EPCs can efficiently synthesize and disseminate evidence addressing a range of clinical topics for diverse stakeholders, and can influence local decision making. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:185–192. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine