IR tools hamper routine computer use by doctors

While electronic clinical information proliferates, one study suggests that the information retrieval (IR) tools available to physicians are not up to the task of capturing what’s out there. It’s a common belief that such computerized information will upgrade patient care, promote better use of medical evidence, and help generalist physicians keep current.

"A growing number of products are available at modest cost on computer networks (including the Internet) and CD-ROM. Despite the easy availability of these products, it is not clear how well physicians use them, whether they are cost-effective, or how often they lead to better clinical decisions," write William Hersch, MD, and David Hickam, MD, from Oregon Health Services University in Portland. The findings indicate that current IR systems have limited use in patient care settings and meet only a small fraction of clinicians’ overall information needs. Textbooks and other such non-journal sources answer most of their questions. They use IR systems primarily to identify articles in journals.

But the average cost of 30 minutes per question renders the routine use of journal literature impractical for most clinical questions, especially in patient care settings.

(For further details, see: Hersch WR, Hickam DH. "How well do physicians use electronic information retrieval systems? A framework for investigation and systematic review." JAMA 1998; 280:1,347-1,352.)