P22S03: Angina
Bottom line: Information on angina was used to maintain the management of a patient (treatment with aspirine). There were no information-related
patient health outcomes.
Level 1 outcome (situational relevance): On May 4, 2009, P22 did a search at work, by themselves, and after an
encounter with a patient. They retrieved one information hit about angina. The reported search objective was: to address a clinical question. “[The patient was over 50 years old and
presenting with] pain in the chest. They [the patient – P22 doesn’t remember if
the patient was a man or a woman] were in the emergency for two days. [...] I
only wanted to know what was e-Therapeutics+’s opinion concerning pectoral
angina. [...] It was just to make sure that I did the right thing with what I
decided, that’s all. [The clinical question was] if we should change the
aspirin.” According to P22,
e-Therapeutics+ was the only source for information, and the found information
was relevant.
Level 2 outcome (cognitive impact): One hit was associated with a report of positive cognitive impact (see table). Regarding
practice improvement, P22 stated: “e-Therapeutics+ actually reminded me of
something that I forgot [Ticlopidine] and that indirectly gave me a little more
confidence in what I had done. [This] also changed my practice since I had
forgotten about these things.”
Retrieved
information hit:
1) e-Therapeutics+ (CIRT): e-Therapeutics Tab – Cardiovascular disorders–Angina–Highlight + whole page(P22S03H01)
Level 3 outcome
(information use): Information on angina was retrieved, and
used to better understand a specific issue with respect to
the management of the patient, and to maintain (be more certain about) the management of a patient (information used as presented in e-Therapeutics+). “After having found this information, I
remember that I decided not to change the aspirin with the other products. I
remember because we can treat with antiplatelet agents. We were given three
possibilities and I chose [to continue with] aspirin. [I used the information]
to reinforce a little our decision, as we say [and to continue the treatment
with aspirin].”
Level 4 outcome (patient health): Without the information hit, P22’s management of the patient would have
been the same. There was no clear relationship between the information use and
patient health outcomes.
Levels of outcome of information-seeking
|
Situational relevance |
Positive cognitive
impact |
Information use |
Patient health |
|
Address a clinical question |
Practice improved Reminded something Motivated to learn Confirmed Reassured |
Be more certain Understand issue |
No outcome |