Tackling Effective Life‐Long Learning: Comparing Acp Smart Medicine to Other Point of Care Resources

1University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio‐
RAHC, Harlingen, TX

Meeting: Hospital Medicine 2014, March 24-27, Las Vegas, Nev.

Abstract number: 150

Background:

Point of care resources have become readily available making it potentially possible to make clinical decisions at the bedside with the best evidence‐based medicine. Several factors are important when selecting a decision‐supporting source; these include ease of use, accuracy, quantity, current information and timely results. These factors contribute to a physician’s overall satisfaction with the product. ACP recently released “Smart Medicine”, a point of care tool. ACP Smart Medicine is free to it’s members, has face validity and links quickly to evidence making it tool that could be of value to residents and all physicians. As part of our resident led evidenced based curriculum, we compared ACP smart medicine to other similar tools to answer clinical questions that were raised during check‐in rounds or morning report.

Methods:

Internal Medicine Residents were asked to answer eight clinical questions, ranging from pathophysiology to diagnosis and management. Residents were asked to compare ACP Smart Medicine to other (their preference) available products (AHRQ, Medscape, OVID, PubMed, UpToDate and Wikipedia). Residents then evaluated accuracy, quantity, current information, timeliness, and ease‐of‐use and overall satisfaction.

Results:

The main resource participants elected to compare to ACP Smart Medicine was UptoDate, reported at 88.7%. For accuracy of information, ACP Smart Medicine was 19.3% vs other resources at 53.2%; quantity of information, ACP Smart Medicine 12.9% vs other resources 64.5%; current information, ACP Smart Medicine 22.5% vs other resources 51.6%; speed of resource, ACP Smart Medicine 17.7% vs other resources 64.5%; usability, ACP Smart Medicine 21.0% vs other resources 59.7% and overall satisfaction, ACP Smart Medicine 22.5% vs other resources at 51.6%.

Conclusions:

We believe that it is essential for the best evidence‐based medicine to understand the value and limitations of point of care resources to deliver high quality patient care. In our study, ACP Smart Medicine when compared with other resources (mainly UpToDate), received a lower rating in the six parameters assessed among our internal medicine residents. Although this may be due to more familiarity with certain resources (cognitive inertia), technical factors were often cited by residents for their preference such as a more user friendly format and search engine leading to a broader database. ACP Smart Medicine has many characteristics that are appealing and it is still in its infancy, but should address some of these technical factors to become the recommended resource.

To cite this abstract:

Sardinas A, Clarke A, Hanley J, Carter K. Tackling Effective Life‐Long Learning: Comparing Acp Smart Medicine to Other Point of Care Resources. Abstract published at Hospital Medicine 2014, March 24-27, Las Vegas, Nev. Abstract 150. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2014; 9 (suppl 2). https://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/tackling-effective-lifelong-learning-comparing-acp-smart-medicine-to-other-point-of-care-resources/. Accessed November 22, 2019.

« Back to Hospital Medicine 2014, March 24-27, Las Vegas, Nev.