Thanks Paul, I agree that universal training in EBM (evidence based
medicine/practice) is the most important need that it faces today as a
sapling to grow into the tree that it deserves to in future.
However one must ensure that the training is done in realistic circumstances
in the workplace. This I find has been emphasized even by the EBMWG way
back since its inception along with other papers over the years that reflect
its outcome based efficacy in those settings.
Coming to the question of how the EBM tree would look in future I wish there
were more descriptions of the EBM process (that is right now active but
remains undocumented in most health care giver workplaces—their day to day
tryst with utilizing/applying EBM etc).
Most of the papers available on EBM today, concentrate on outcomes and
leave us guessing about the circumstances and details of their genesis. This
in the past was due to space constraints in paper journals but in the
paperless universe of the future one may even hope to look at the lives of
all the 4444 people swallowing the anti-lipidemic (later thought of as
anti-inflammatory as well) and through their life details appear at an
understanding of how their lives were transformed by the pill (and not just
if/when they died).
I am aware its too much of an undertaking {even if the life/file details of
the 4444 people in the single paper was available on the web for free access
we would need extra RAM on our skull tops (brains) to gorge on and digest
that kind of sundry information}. Perhaps we might have that as well in
future?
One can also look at the past to understand future. In the past (200 years?)
the kind of information access that I am talking about did exist in the
skull tops of many all knowing and all powerful family physicians (in the
absence of the specialist—if at all the only competition was the barber
surgeon).
The past wise physician's anecdotal wisdom although of negligible benefit in
a present global society was of immense value in their local communities
where they were seeped in information about the details of their patient's
lives that gave them a non mathematical/non generalizable but perhaps
equally fair impression of what suited their individual patient needs.
Most of their treatments by today's standards would be deemed palliative but
then one might witness the same happening to present day evidence based
treatments in future (even the present heirarchy of weighing evidence may
change with the discovery of something better than the RCT/Syetemic review).
Its always inconceivable how some paradigm can replace another untill it
happens as a breakthrough and the cycle continues.
The greatest problem in EBM today is applying evidence to the individual and
that is what has made EBM a meeting ground for qualitative and quantitative
researchers/observers alike and very often it transforms into a battle
ground with various parties accusing each other of microfascism, shooting
expletives like post positivists (aimed at aeriel nosed quantitative
EBMers), post modernists (targeted towards un-understandable qualitative
researchers).
In future I hope the EBM tree would have a more aesthetic/fractal symmetry
and not appear bowed down to one side as some perceive it now.
Rakesh Biswas
On 10/24/06, Paul Glasziou <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Ornissa
> An interesting question. It might be useful to break this into 2 parts:
> (a) sorting out the information mess and (b) bedside use of evidence by
> clinicians. Improving (a) will help (b) but will only ever be a part of the
> "solution".
> (a) Its useful to consider Brain Haynes's 4S model: Studies, Syntheses
> (systematic reviews), Synopses (such as Clinical Evidence), and Systems.
> With around 90 trials per day and 4 new reviews, we will continue to have an
> information overload. Trials, and other evidence, grows at a faster rate
> than it is synthesised in systematic reviews, and the reviews have large
> gaps in usability. So the 4S is improving but still not matching the rate of
> growth and needs to solve several presentational problems to make the
> syntheses, synopses, and systems directly usable in clinical settings. It
> will happen, but only gradually.
> (b) Even if the mess of (a) is sorted, so evidence is on tap at the point
> of care, we still need several steps. First, clinicians will need to
> distinguish good from poor evidence. Anecdotally I have heard that the
> growth in clinicians use of pharmaceutical company websites outstrips use of
> good evidence resources. Second, clinicians will still need to be able to
> individualise and contextualise that evidence.
> So what needs to happen to achieve this? First, we should encourage and
> assist the growth of good evidence resources. Second, every medical (and
> nursing, and physiotherapy, etc) school needs to provide excellent training
> in EBM at the undergraduate and postgraduate level. This means not just
> having heard about statistics and trials, but good knowledge, skills, and
> (mostly importantly) attitudes in the use and application of research. That
> is a slow but necessary shift that will take decades. Which reminds me of
> the saying: The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best
> time is today!
> Best wishes,
> Paul Glasziou
>
>
> Greetings
> Could I please have comments on peoples thoughts/model on the future of
> EBP,
> ?Different levels of EBP Practice, some aimed at practicing Clinicians to
> the Clinicianswriting systematic reviews/CPGs.
> Please let me know,
> Cheers,
> Ornissa Naidoo
> Clinical Educator
> Loganbeaudesert Health Service District
> Australia
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email, including any attachments sent with it, is
> confidential and for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).
> This confidentiality is not waived or lost, if you receive it and
> you are not the intended recipient(s), or if it is transmitted/
> received in error.
>
> Any unauthorised use, alteration, disclosure, distribution or
> review of this email is strictly prohibited. The information
> contained in this email, including any attachment sent with
> it, may be subject to a statutory duty of confidentiality if it
> relates to health service matters.
>
> If you are not the intended recipient(s), or if you have
> received this email in error, you are asked to immediately
> notify the sender by telephone collect on Australia
> +61 1800 198 175 or by return email. You should also
> delete this email, and any copies, from your computer
> system network and destroy any hard copies produced.
>
> If not an intended recipient of this email, you must not copy,
> distribute or take any action(s) that relies on it; any form of
> disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this
> email is also prohibited.
>
> Although Queensland Health takes all reasonable steps to
> ensure this email does not contain malicious software,
> Queensland Health does not accept responsibility for the
> consequences if any person's computer inadvertently suffers
> any disruption to services, loss of information, harm or is
> infected with a virus, other malicious computer programme or
> code that may occur as a consequence of receiving this
> email.
>
> Unless stated otherwise, this email represents only the views
> of the sender and not the views of the Queensland Government.
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Glasziou
> Director, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine,
> Department of Primary Health Care,
> University of Oxford www.cebm.net
> ph +44-1865-227055 fax +44-1865-227036
>
>
