Features of effective medical knowledge resources to support point of care learning: a focus group study

PLoS One. 2013 Nov 25;8(11):e80318. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080318. eCollection 2013.

Abstract

Objective: Health care professionals access various information sources to quickly answer questions that arise in clinical practice. The features that favorably influence the selection and use of knowledge resources remain unclear. We sought to better understand how clinicians select among the various knowledge resources available to them, and from this to derive a model for an effective knowledge resource.

Methods: We conducted 11 focus groups at an academic medical center and outlying community sites. We included a purposive sample of 50 primary care and subspecialist internal medicine and family medicine physicians. We transcribed focus group discussions and analyzed these using a constant comparative approach to inductively identify features that influence the selection of knowledge resources.

Results: We identified nine features that influence users' selection of knowledge resources, namely efficiency (with sub-features of comprehensiveness, searchability, and brevity), integration with clinical workflow, credibility, user familiarity, capacity to identify a human expert, reflection of local care processes, optimization for the clinical question (e.g., diagnosis, treatment options, drug side effect), currency, and ability to support patient education. No single existing resource exemplifies all of these features.

Conclusion: The influential features identified in this study will inform the development of knowledge resources, and could serve as a framework for future research in this field.

MeSH terms

  • Academic Medical Centers
  • Education, Medical / methods*
  • Focus Groups
  • Humans
  • Information Science / methods
  • Internal Medicine / education
  • Knowledge
  • Physicians
  • Point-of-Care Systems
  • Primary Health Care

Grants and funding

No external funding sources for this study. The internal funding sources had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.