Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Hospital evidence-based practice centers (EPCs) seek to implement evidence into local policy and practice, but their impact on institutional decision making is unclear.
Objectives: To assess the evidence synthesis activities and impact of the University of Pennsylvania Health System’s Center for Evidence-based Practice (CEP), a hospital EPC.
Methods: Descriptive analysis of CEP’s internal database of rapid systematic reviews since CEP’s inception (July 2006 to June 2014), and survey of review requestors from CEP’s last four fiscal years. Descriptive analysis examined requestor and report characteristics; a questionnaire examined report usability and impact, and requestor satisfaction (higher scores on five-point Likert scales reflected greater agreement).
Results: CEP has completed 249 reviews since inception. The most common requestors were clinical departments (29%, n = 72), chief medical officers (19%, n = 47), and purchasing committees (14%, n = 35). The most common technologies reviewed were drugs (24%, n = 60), devices (19%, n = 48), tests (12%, n = 31) and care processes (12%, n = 31). The mean report completion time was 70 days. Thirty reports (12%) informed computerized decision support interventions. More than half of reports (56%, n = 139) were completed in the last four fiscal years for 65 requestors. Forty-six of the 64 eligible survey participants responded (72%). Requestors were satisfied with the report (mean = 4.4), and agreed it was delivered within the expected timeframe (mean = 4.4), informed their final decision (mean = 4.1), and that their final decision was consistent with report findings (mean = 4.0).
Conclusions: Our findings suggest hospital EPCs can efficiently synthesize and disseminate evidence addressing a range of clinical topics for diverse stakeholders, and can influence decision making. Hospital EPCs may be an effective infrastructure paradigm for promoting evidence-based decision making.
Objectives: To assess the evidence synthesis activities and impact of the University of Pennsylvania Health System’s Center for Evidence-based Practice (CEP), a hospital EPC.
Methods: Descriptive analysis of CEP’s internal database of rapid systematic reviews since CEP’s inception (July 2006 to June 2014), and survey of review requestors from CEP’s last four fiscal years. Descriptive analysis examined requestor and report characteristics; a questionnaire examined report usability and impact, and requestor satisfaction (higher scores on five-point Likert scales reflected greater agreement).
Results: CEP has completed 249 reviews since inception. The most common requestors were clinical departments (29%, n = 72), chief medical officers (19%, n = 47), and purchasing committees (14%, n = 35). The most common technologies reviewed were drugs (24%, n = 60), devices (19%, n = 48), tests (12%, n = 31) and care processes (12%, n = 31). The mean report completion time was 70 days. Thirty reports (12%) informed computerized decision support interventions. More than half of reports (56%, n = 139) were completed in the last four fiscal years for 65 requestors. Forty-six of the 64 eligible survey participants responded (72%). Requestors were satisfied with the report (mean = 4.4), and agreed it was delivered within the expected timeframe (mean = 4.4), informed their final decision (mean = 4.1), and that their final decision was consistent with report findings (mean = 4.0).
Conclusions: Our findings suggest hospital EPCs can efficiently synthesize and disseminate evidence addressing a range of clinical topics for diverse stakeholders, and can influence decision making. Hospital EPCs may be an effective infrastructure paradigm for promoting evidence-based decision making.