Title Place - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Title Place

Description:

Title Place Date – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:98
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 96
Provided by: Centre81
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Title Place


1
Title Place
  • Date

2
What Ive done / do/dont do
  • Done Ive gotten out of date and retrained in
    Internal Medicine twice
  • Do I run an in-patient General Medicine service
    (all comers) at a UK DGH
  • 208 admissions last month
  • strive to use evidence at the bedside
  • Dont Ive cancelled my journal subscriptions
    (and give away the JCI and BMJ)

3
The Problems
  • We need evidence (about the accuracy of
    diagnostic tests, the power of prognostic
    markers, the comparative efficacy and safety of
    interventions, etc.) about 5 times for every
    in-patient (and twice for every 3 out-patients).
  • We get less than a third of it

4
The Problems
  • To keep up to date in Internal Medicine, I need
    to read 17 articles a day, 365 days a year
  • Need to read
  • Dont
  • Nor does anyone else

5
Median minutes/week spent reading about my
patients
  • Self-reports at 17 Grand Rounds
  • Medical Students 90 minutes
  • House Officers (PGY1) 0 (up to 70none)
  • SHOs (PGY2-4) 20 (up to 15none)
  • Registrars 45 (up to 40none)
  • Sr. Registrars 30 (up to 15none)
  • Consultants
  • Grad. Post 1975 45 (up to 30none)
  • Grad. Pre 1975 30 (up to 40none)

6
Performance deteriorates, too
  • Determinants of the clinical decision to treat
    some, but not other, hypertensives
  • Level of blood pressure.
  • Patients age.
  • The physicians year of graduation from medical
    school.
  • The amount of target-organ damage.

7
No wonder, then, that CME is growing
  • Big, and getting huge.
  • Usually instructionally (fact) oriented.
  • Several randomised trials have shown that it does
    not improve clinical performance.

8
Three solutions
  • Clinical performance can keep up to date
  • by learning how to practice evidence-based
    medicine ourselves.
  • by seeking and applying evidence-based medical
    summaries generated by others.
  • by applying evidence-based strategies for
    changing our clinical behaviour.

9
When did EBM begin ?
  • Certainly in post-revolutionary Paris.
  • Arguably in B.C China.
  • Some late-comers named it in 1992.

10
What evidence-based medicine is
  • The practice of EBM is the integration of
  • individual clinical expertise
  • with the
  • best available external clinical evidence from
    systematic research. and
  • patients values and expectations

11
I.Individual Clinical Expertise
  • Clinical skills and clinical judgement
  • Vital for determining whether the evidence (or
    guideline) applies to the individual patient at
    all and, if so, how

12
II. Best External Evidence
  • From real clinical research amongintact
    patients.
  • Has a short doubling-time (10 years).
  • Replaces currently accepted diagnostic tests and
    treatments with new ones that are more powerful,
    more accurate, more efficacious, and safer.

13
III. Patients Values Expectations
  • Have always played a central role in determining
    whether and which interventions take place
  • Were getting better at quantifying and
    integrating them

14
What EBM is not
  • EBM is not cook-book medicine
  • evidence needs extrapolation to my patients
    unique biology and values
  • EBM is not cost-cutting medicine
  • when efficacy for my patient is paramount, costs
    may rise, not fall

15
Evidence-Based MedicineThe Practice
  • When caring for patients creates the need for
    information
  • Translation to an answerable question
    (patient/manoeuvre/outcome).
  • Efficient track-down of the best evidence
  • secondary (pre-appraised) sources e.g.,
    Cochrane E-B Journals
  • primary literature

16
Evidence-Based MedicineThe Practice
  • Critical appraisal of the evidence for its
    validity and clinical applicability è generation
    of a 1-page summary.
  • Integration of that critical appraisal with
    clinical expertise and the patients unique
    biology and beliefs è action.
  • Evaluation of ones performance.

17
We neednt always carry out all 5 steps to
provide E-B Care
  • Asking an answerable question.
  • Searching for the best evidence.
  • Critically-appraising the evidence.
  • Integrating the evidence with our expertise and
    our patients unique biology and values
  • evaluating our performance

18
Weve identified 3 different modes of practice
  • Searching appraising
  • provides E-B care, but is expensive in time and
    resources
  • Searching only
  • much, quicker, and if carried out among E-B
    resources, can provide E-B care
  • Replicating the practice of experts
  • quickest, but may not distinguish evidence-based
    from ego-based recommendations

19
Even fully EB-trained clinicians work in all 3
modes
  • Searching appraising mode for the problems I
    encounter daily.
  • Searching only mode among E-B resources for
    problems I encounter once a month.
  • Replicating the practice of experts mode for
    problems I encounter once a decade(and crossing
    my fingers!).

20
Patients can benefit
  • Even if lt10 of clinicians are capable of
    practicing in the searching appraising mode
    (5 of GPs)
  • As long as most of them practice in a searching
    mode within high-quality evidence sources (70-80
    of GPs)
  • Cochrane Library, E-B Journals, E-B Guidelines,
    etc

21
Three solutions
  • Clinical performance can keep up to date
  • by learning how to practice evidence-based
    medicine ourselves.
  • by seeking and applying evidence-based medical
    summaries generated by others.
  • by applying evidence-based strategies for
    changing our clinical behaviour.

22
Information required within seconds
  • Systematic reviews, periodically updated, of
    randomised trials of the effects of health care
    (from all sources, and in all languages)
    The Cochrane Collaboration.

23
Cochrane Systematic Reviews (522 another 500 in
preparation) Database of Abstracts of Reviews of
Effectiveness (1895) Registry of Randomised
Controlled Trials (218,355)
24
Information required within seconds
  • CD-Evidence-based journals of 2º publication
  • Ê screen 50-70 clinical journals per week for
    clinical articles that pass critical appraisal
    quality filters è conclusions likely to be true.
  • Ë select the subset that are clinically relevant.
  • Ì summarise as more-informative abstracts.
  • Í add commentaries from clinical experts.
  • Î introduce with declarative titles.

25
(No Transcript)
26
2. Seeking and Applying EBM generated by others
  • Evidence-Based Medicine is published in
  • English
  • French
  • German
  • Italian
  • Portuguese
  • Spanish

27
2. Seeking and Applying EBM generated by others
  • New Evidence-based journals of 2º publication
  • E-B Cardiovascular Medicine
  • E-B Health Policy Management
  • E-B Nursing
  • E-B Mental Health
  • And as new departments in 1º journals.

28
2. Seeking and Applying EBM generated by others
  • E-B Textbooks
  • E-B Pain Relief
  • E-B Cardiology
  • includes icons for levels of evidence
  • E-B On-Call
  • includes gt 1300 CATs

29
Can you really practice EBM?
  • Is there any E for EBM ?

30
Conventional Wisdom
  • only about 15 of medical interventions are
    supported by solid scientific evidence (BMJ
    Editorial)

31
Even on the U.S. Talk-Shows (Health Outrage of
the Week)
  • ..... this would put 80 to 90 per cent of
    accepted medical procedures in this country under
    the heading of quackery!

32
Problems with Conventional Wisdom
  • uses clinical manoeuvres, rather than patients,
    as the denominator.
  • tends to focus on high-technology, big ticket
    items.
  • relies on simple literature searches that miss
    over half of the most rigorous types of
    evaluations.
  • conducted from armchairs.

33
Performed an empirical study on a busy in-patient
service
  • on the general medicine in-patient service of the
    Nuffield Department of Medicine at the
    Oxford-Radcliffe NHS Hospital Trust (The John
    Radcliffe)
  • all our admissions arise from urgent referral
    from local GPs or via the Emergency Room

34
The Protocol
  • At the time of discharge, death, or months end,
    each patient was reviewed and consensus reached
    on
  • The primary diagnosis
  • the disease, syndrome or condition most
    responsible for the patients admission to
    hospital

35
The Protocol (cont.)
  • The Primary Intervention
  • the treatment or other manoeuvre that constituted
    our most important attempt to cure, alleviate, or
    care for the primary diagnosis
  • traced into the literature to determine its
    basis in evidence
  • the Consultants Instant Resource Book
  • bibliographic data base searches

36
Primary Interventions were Classified by Level
  • Evidence from Randomised Control Trials (better
    yet systematic reviews of all relevant,
    high-quality RCTs)
  • Convincing non-experimental evidence (unnecessary
    unethical to randomise)
  • Interventions without substantial evidence

37
Conclusions from E-B oriented General Medicine
  • 82 of our patients received evidence-based care.
  • treatments for 53 were justified by RCTs or
    systematic reviews of RCTs.
  • Of 28 relevant RCTs and SRs, 21 were accessible
    within seconds.
  • treatments for 29 were justified by convincing
    non-experimental evidence

38
Evidence from RCTs (53)
  • 36 had Cardiovascular diagnoses
  • Ischaemic heart disease 17
  • Heart failure 6
  • Arrhythmia 2
  • Thromboembolism 3
  • Cerebrovascular 8

39
Evidence from RCTs (53)
  • 7 had taken poison
  • 5 received chemotherapy or analgesia for cancer
  • 3 had gastrointestinal disorders
  • 2 had obstructive airways disease

40
Convincing non-experimental evidence (29)
  • Infections 15
  • Cardiac disorders 7
  • Miscellany (non-compliance, drug reactions, bowel
    or bladder neck obstruction, dehydration,
    micturition syncope) 7

41
Interventions without substantial evidence (18)
  • Specific symptomatic and supportive care for mild
    poisoning, non-cardiac chest pain, viral
    (non-herpetic) meningitis, terminal CNS disease,
    confusion, and food poisoning.

42
Better Outcomes for Patients When EBM Is Practised
  • E-B practise vs. Outcome in stroke (US)
  • When cared for by E-B neurologists, patients were
    44 more likely to receive warfarin, and much
    more likely to be placed in a stroke care unit,
  • And were 22 less likely to die in the next 90
    days.
    (Mitchell et al
    stroke 1996271937-43)

43
Centres for Evidence-Based Surgery
  • E-B General/Vascular Unit in Liverpool
  • 95 received evidence-based Rx
  • 24 Level 1
  • 71 Level 2
  • E-B Paediatric Unit in Liverpool
  • 77 received evidence-based Rx
  • 11 Level 1
  • 66 Level 2

44
Worse Outcomes for Patients When EBM Is Not
Practised
  • In a city-wide study of E-B practise vs. Outcome
    in carotid stenosis
  • Generated E-B indications for endarterectomy and
    reviewed 291 pts.
  • Found the surgical indications
  • Appropriate in 33
  • Questionable in 49
  • Inappropriate in 18

45
Worse Outcomes for Patients When EBM Is Not
Practised
  • Stroke or death within the next 30 days
  • Expected (if left alone) 0.5
  • Expected (if properly selected and operated)
    1.5
  • Observed among operated patients (2/3 operated
    for questionable or inappropriate reasons)
    gt5 Wong et al. Stroke 199728
    891-8.

46
Evidence-Based Ambulatory Paediatrics
  • 54 of manoeuvres were evidence-based (experts
    had predicted lt20)
  • 77 of diagnostic manoeuvres
  • 67 of treatments
  • 59 of health promotion

47
Centres for Evidence-Based Psychiatry
  • In-Patients (Oxford)
  • 67 treated on the basis of RCTs
  • Out-Patient
  • gt80 received evidence-based Rx

48
Evidence-Based General Practice
  • 122 consecutive consultations in a suburban
    (Leeds, UK) practice.
  • 81 evidence-based
  • 31 based on RCTs or overviews
  • 50 based on convincing non-experimental evidence
  • 19 without substantial evidence (Gill et
    al, BMJ 1996312819-21)

49
Can we get evidence to the bedside?
  • Need it within seconds if it is to be
    incorporated into busy clinical rounds
  • Our initial attempts to bring the best evidence
    to a busy clinical team caring for 200
    admissions per month

50
(No Transcript)
51
Searching for Evidence in the Month Before the
Cart
  • Expected searches 98
  • Identified searching needs 72
  • Only 19 searches (26) carried out.

52
Contents of the Cart
  • Infra-red simultaneous stethoscope with 12 remote
    receivers.
  • Physical diagnosis text book and reprints (JAMA
    Rational Clinical Exam).
  • Notebook computer, computer projector, and
    pop-out screen.
  • Rapid printer.

53
(No Transcript)
54
Contents of the Cart (cont)Library Round-Trip
7 min
  • 125 summaries (1-3 pp) of evidence previously
    appraised and summarised by Side A teams (in the
    form of Redbook entries or Critically-Appraised
    Topics CATs).
  • Access Time to the bottom line 12 sec.

55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
(No Transcript)
58
(No Transcript)
59
Contents of the Cart (cont)Library Round-Trip
7 min
  • CD of Best Evidence
  • Access Time to the bottom line 26 sec.
  • CD of WinSPIRS (5-year clinical subsets)
  • Access Time to useful abstract 90 sec.
    (so used for filling Educational Rx after rounds)
  • CD of the Cochrane Library
    (used for filling Educational Rx after rounds)

60
Usefulness of the Cart
  • 81 of searches were for evidence that could
    affect diagnostic and/or treatment decisions.
  • 90 of these searches were successful in finding
    useful evidence.


61
Of the successful searches (from the perspective
of the most junior responsible team member)
  • 52 confirmed diagnostic and/or management
    decisions
  • 23 led to changes in existing decisions
  • 25 led to additional decisions

62
Searching for Evidence in a 3-day period after
the Cart
  • Expected searches 10
  • Identified searching needs 41
  • Only 5 searches (12) carried out.

63
Can we get evidence to the bedside?
  • Yes, and it will improve patient care.
  • But can we provide it in a less cumbersome form?

64
(No Transcript)
65
EBM and Purchasing
  • In harmony
  • Ê When we clinicians stop doing things that are
    useless or harmful
  • ËWhen we use just-as-good but less expensive
    treatments, carers, and sites for care.

66
What we could save in Oxford by switching from
  • LASIX ê frusemide 90,000
  • simvastatin ê cerivastatin 500,000
  • TENORMIN ê atenolol 700,000
  • diclofenac ê ibuprofen 1,000,000
  • Total 2,290,000
  • how many hips would these savings purchase?

67
EBM and Purchasing
  • Still in harmony
  • Ì When we spend now to save later.

68
EBM and Purchasing
  • In grudging collaboration
  • Í Waiting lists, once we understand the
    opportunity costs of shortening them
  • its not about money
  • its about what else we wont be able to do if we
    shorten them

69
EBM and Purchasing
  • In conflict
  • Î When we identify so strongly with a dying
    patients short-term goals that we use resources
    that we know would add more QALYs if used for
    other patients.

70
EBM and E-B Guidelines
  • EBM integrates evidence, expertise, and the
    unique biology and values of individual patients.
  • Local EB Provision ought to integrate evidence,
    expertise, and the unique biology and values of
    the local scene.

71
EBM and E-B Guidelines
  • The best evidence comes from systematic reviews
    (such as Cochrane) and/or E-B journals of 2º
    publication
  • Much more likely (than personal search and
    critical appraisal) to be true
  • Saves the clinicians precious (scarce!) time
  • Avoids error and duplication of effort

72
EBM and E-B Guidelines
  • But NO systematic review can (or should try to)
    identify the 4 Bs
  • Burden
  • Barriers
  • Behaviours
  • Balance
  • They can ONLY be determined at the local (or even
    patient) level

73
1. Burden
  • The burden of illness, disability, and untimely
    death that would occur if the evidence were NOT
    applied
  • the consequences of doing nothing

74
2. Barriers
  • Patient-values preferences
  • Geography
  • Economics
  • Administration/Organisation
  • Tradition
  • Expert opinion

75
3. Behaviours
  • The behaviours required from providers and
    patients if the evidence is applied.
  • All that guidelines can do is specify the former!

76
4. Balance
  • The opportunity cost of applying this guideline
    rather than some other one.

77
Killer Bs
  • Burden too small to warrant action.
  • Barriers ultimately down to patients values.
  • Behaviours may not be achievable.
  • Balance may favour another guideline over this
    one.

78
Two monumental wastes of time and energy
  • First, national/international evidence-summarising
    groups prescribing how patients everywhere
    should be treated.
  • Their expertise predicting the health
    consequences if you do treat.
  • Their ignorance the local Bs, and whether
    killer Bs are operating.

79
Two monumental wastes of time and energy
  • Second, local groups attempting to systematically
    review the evidence.
  • Their expertise identifying the local Bs and
    eliminating the killer Bs
  • Their ignorance searching for all relevant
    evidence Chinese performing tests for
    heterogeneity.

80
Applying a study result to my patient
  • Never interested in generalising
  • Am interested in a special form of extrapolation
    particularising

81
Extrapolating (particularising) to my individual
patient
  • First and foremost Is my patient so different
    from those in the trial that its results can make
    no contribution to my treatment decision?
  • if no contribution, I restart my search
  • if it could help, I need to integrate the
    evidence with my clinical expertise and my
    patients unique biology and values...

82
To add Clinical Expertise and Patients Biology
Values
  • What is my patients RISK ?
  • of the event the treatment strives to prevent?
  • of the side-effect of treatment?
  • What is my pts RESPONSIVENESS?
  • What is the treatments FEASIBILITY in my
    practice/setting?
  • What are my patients VALUES ?

83
To add Clinical Expertise and Patients Biology
Values
  • I begin by considering Risk and Responsiveness
    for the event I hope to prevent with the
    treatment
  • The report gives me (or I can calculate) an
    Absolute Risk Reduction ARR for the average
    patient in the trial.
  • ARR probability that Rx will help the average
    patient.

84
For example, Warfarin in nonvalvular atrial
fibrillation
  • After 1.8 years of follow-up in an RCT
  • Control Event Rate (placebo) 4.3
  • Exper. Event Rate (warfarin) 0.9
  • so, for the average patient in the trial, the
    probability of being helped, or Absolute Risk
    Reduction (CER - EER) 3.4 ACPJC
    199311842

85
How can I adjust that ARR for my pts Risk and
Responsiveness?
  • Could try to do this in absolute terms
  • my Patients Expected Event Rate PEER
  • and multiply that by the RRR
  • and factor in my Patients expected
    responsiveness
  • Clinicians are not very accurate at estimating
    absolute Risk and Responsiveness

86
How can I adjust that ARR for my pts Risk and
Responsiveness?
  • Clinicians are pretty good at estimating their
    patients relative Risk and Responsiveness
  • So, I express them as decimal fractions
  • frisk (if at three times the risk, frisk 3)
  • fresp (if only half as responsive e.g., low
    compliance, fresp 0.5)

87
How can I adjust that ARR for my pts Risk and
Responsiveness?
  • probability that Rx will help my patient ARR x
    frisk x fresp
  • If ARR is 3.4
  • and I judge that their frisk is 3
  • and that their fresp is 0.5
  • then the probability that warfarin will help my
    patient 3.4 x 3 x 0.5 5.1

88
Must also consider the probability that I will do
harm
  • In the case of warfarin serious bleeding
    (requiring transfusion) from the g-i tract, or
    into the urine, soft tissues or oropharynx.
  • Absolute Risk Increase 3 at 1 yr, so ARI
    estimated to be 5 in 1.8 years
    ACPJC 199412052

89
and adjust the probability of harm for my patient
  • Again, can express my clinical judgement in
    relative terms fharm
  • Given my patients age, I judge their fharm to
    be doubled 2
  • then the probability that Rx will harm my patient
    ARI x fharm 5 x 2 10

90
Can now begin to estimate the Likelihood of Help
vs. Harm
  • Probability of help ARR (embolus) x frisk x
    fresp 5.1
  • Probability of harm ARI (haemorrhage) x
    fharm 10
  • My patients Likelihood of Being Helped vs.
    Harmed LHH is (5.1 to 10) or 2 to 1
    against warfarin!
  • or is it ?

91
The LHH has to include my patients values
  • I need to take into account my patients views
    (preferences, utilities) about the relative
    severity
  • of the bleed I might cause
  • to the embolus I hope to prevent
  • Expressed in relative terms s
  • if the bleed is half as bad as the embolus, then
    s 0.5

92
On in-patient services in Oxford and Toronto
  • When Dr. Sharon Straus has described a typical
    embolic stroke (with its residual disability) and
    typical moderate bleed (brief hospitalisation and
    transfusion but no permanent disability)
  • for most of her patients, a bleed is only 1/5th
    as bad as a stroke
  • so the s is 0.2

93
So the LHH becomes
  • ARR for embolus x frisk x fresp vs. ARI
    for bleed x f-harm x s
  • 3.4 x 3 x 0.5 5.1 vs. 5 x 2 x 0.2
    2
  • LHH 5.1 to 2 or 2.5 to1
  • (I am more than twice as likely to help than harm
    my patient if they accept my offer of Rx)

94
We can work out the LHH for most patients lt6
minutes
  • To be feasible on our service has to be
    do-able in 3 minutes.

95
Reactions from our patients
  • All are grateful that their values/opinions are
    being sought
  • 1/3 want to see the calculations, perhaps change
    their value for s, and make up their own minds.
  • 1/3 adopt the LHH as presented.
  • 1/3 say Whatever you tell me, doctor!
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com