Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Hosp Med. 2016 Mar;11(3):185-92. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2498. Epub 2015 Oct 27.

Evidence synthesis activities of a hospital evidence-based practice center and impact on hospital decision making.

Author information

1
University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2
Center for Evidence-based Practice, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3
Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
4
Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
5
Institute for Biomedical Informatics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
6
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
7
Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Abstract

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.

PMID:
26505618
DOI:
10.1002/jhm.2498
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Frontline Medical Communications Inc
Loading ...
Support Center