Protocol for the Quick Clinical study: a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of an online evidence retrieval system on decision-making in general practice

BackgroundOnline information retrieval systems have the potential to improve patient care but there are few comparative studies of the impact of online evidence on clinicians' decision-making behaviour in routine clinical work.Methods/designA randomized controlled parallel design is employed to assess the effectiveness of an online evidence retrieval system, Quick Clinical (QC) in improving clinical decision-making processes in general practice. Eligible clinicians are randomised either to receive access or not to receive access to QC in their consulting rooms for 12 months. Participants complete pre- and post trial surveys.Two-hundred general practitioners are recruited. Participants must be registered to practice in Australia, have a computer with Internet access in their consulting room and use electronic prescribing. Clinicians planning to retire or move to another practice within 12 months or participating in any other clinical trial involving electronic extraction of prescriptions data are excluded from the study.The primary end-points for the study is clinician acceptance and use of QC and the resulting change in decision-making behaviour. The study will examine prescribing patterns related to frequently prescribed medications where there has been a recent significant shift in recommendations regarding their use based upon new evidence. Secondary outcome measures include self-reported changes in diagnosis, patient education, prescriptions written, investigations and referrals.DiscussionA trial under experimental conditions is an effective way of examining the impact of using QC in routine general practice consultations.

[1]  J. Charles,et al.  General practice activity in Australia 2002-03 , 2003 .

[2]  D. Covell,et al.  Information needs in office practice: are they being met? , 1985, Annals of internal medicine.

[3]  Roland M. Grad,et al.  Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: A literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies , 2005, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[4]  L. Green,et al.  Validating an instrument for selecting interventions to change physician practice patterns: a Michigan Consortium for Family Practice Research study. , 2002, The Journal of family practice.

[5]  G. Leung,et al.  Randomised controlled trial of clinical decision support tools to improve learning of evidence based medicine in medical students , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  P. Pluye,et al.  How information retrieval technology may impact on physician practice: an organizational case study in family medicine. , 2004, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[7]  Ilkka Kunnamo,et al.  PRIMARY CARE GUIDELINES ON CONSULTATION PRACTICES: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTERIZED VERSUS PAPER-BASED VERSIONS , 2002, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[8]  E Coiera,et al.  Reinventing ourselves. , 2000, The Medical journal of Australia.

[9]  Enrico Coiera,et al.  Architecture for Knowledge-Based and Federated Search of Online Clinical Evidence , 2005, Journal of medical Internet research.

[10]  Jeremy M. Grimshaw,et al.  Sample size calculator for cluster randomized trials , 2004, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[11]  Farah Magrabi,et al.  General practitioners' use of online evidence during consultations , 2005, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[12]  D. Slawson,et al.  What clinical information do doctors need? , 1997 .

[13]  Sampsa Hautaniemi,et al.  Random Number Generator , 2018, Tolerance Analysis of Electronic Circuits Using MATHCAD.