Volume 15, Issue 6 pp. 1180-1186

Are therapeutic decisions made on the medical admissions unit any more evidence-based than they used to be?

Stephen Ayre MA MCLIP

Corresponding Author

Stephen Ayre MA MCLIP

Clinical Librarian,

Mr Stephen Ayre
George Eliot Training and Education Centre
George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust
College Street
Nuneaton
Warwickshire CV10 7DJ
UK
E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Gareth Walters MRCP BSc

Gareth Walters MRCP BSc

Specialist Registrar in Respiratory and General Internal Medicine, George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, UK

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 23 December 2009
Citations: 5

Abstract

Rationale, aims and objectives To determine whether inpatients in a medical admissions unit in a UK district general hospital received evidence-based therapies in 2008.

Methods The diagnoses of and therapies received by inpatients at the George Eliot Hospital National Health Service Trust in Nuneaton were recorded. A clinical librarian searched the literature (Clinical Knowledge Summaries, Cochrane Library, Medline and Embase) for the best evidence for each diagnosis–therapy pair. Evidence was graded on the following scale: systematic review, randomized controlled trial, non-experimental evidence and no or contrary evidence.

Results One hundred and two patients generated 150 diagnosis–therapy pairs. Of these 61 (41%) had systematic review level evidence supporting them, 17 (11%) randomized controlled trial evidence, 48 (32%) non-experimental evidence and 24 (16%) no evidence.

Conclusions Results were comparable with previous studies. Care in a medical admissions unit in 2008 is still evidence-based, but, despite the vast growth in medical literature, no more than it was. The process was a useful collaboration between medical and library staff to audit the quality of patient care.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.