Staying afloat in a sea of information: Point-of-care resources

MEDSCAPE

Medscape, owned by parent company WebMD, has long been a popular resource. The most recent versions are available for both for Android and iOS mobile platforms. The desktop and mobile apps claim to be designed for point-of-care use, and can be downloaded at no cost after registering as a Medscape user.

Medscape has some interesting features, including a handy pill identifier tool that is new to Medscape and perfect for the “I take one blue pill for my cholesterol” moments. The drug information tools and other features work well offline.

Medscape contains a well-presented drug database and interaction checker, as well as a growing collection of evidence-based articles and videos with links to references in Medline. From the point-of-care standpoint, Medscape also offers a number of decision-making algorithms and a continuously updated medical literature and health-related newsfeed. It contains in-app medical calculators, searchable directories for providers, hospitals, and pharmacies, and CME that can be earned on the website or from the application.

The main Medscape website contains pop-up advertisements, but the mobile app has fewer. Among the occasional frustrations, updates are relatively infrequent,  the content is slow to load, and the phone app can be cumbersome. Of note, in one review,¹¹ Medscape was found to have the lowest quality of evidence.

Strengths of Medscape

• Free with registration
• Medical calculator
• Drug interaction checker
• Pill identifier
• Evidence-based information covering about 4,000 conditions with links to references in Medline
• Ability to e-mail articles for sharing or future reference
• CME
• Unique database of hospitals, providers, and pharmacies to aid in referrals or locating other healthcare professionals
• Algorithms for decision-making
• Images and videos for procedural review and learning
• Option for downloading certain databases for offline use
• Medical news helps you keep up with what patients are watching and reading.

Weaknesses of Medscape

• Advertisements (many of them pop-up)
• The content is updated less frequently than other products listed in this article
• The smartphone app can run slowly
• Quality of reviews may be a concern.

UpToDate

UpToDate (Wolters Kluwer) is used widely by medical students, residents, and fellows as well as practicing providers. It contains narrative reviews of topics written by respected experts directed at both clinicians and clinical staff. In hopes of appealing to many markets, it offers different subscription types so you can customize your choices with add-on features (UpToDate Desktop and UpToDate MobileComplete allow downloading of all content to be accessed offline), different service packages (1-, 2-, and 3-year subscriptions), and the traditional base product that provides online access.

Of the products we reviewed, UpToDate has the largest selection of medical topics, approaching 10,000.¹⁴ In some studies,^10,15 it also had the fastest retrieval time for searches. It uses evidence-based graded recommendations that are updated regularly.

Some have lamented that there is too much information per topic.⁹ In response to early reviews, Wolters Kluwer has made significant changes in the platform and greatly improved the search engine. UpToDate has expanded to include CME and patient information, trying to become that Holy Grail of websites—a one-stop experience. For the lucky few, UpToDate integrates into some electronic health records and provides a relatively seamless experience at the point of care.

Strengths of UpToDate

• One-stop shopping for information, resources, and CME
• Patient information is easy to read and accessible from the same screen
• The largest repository of medical subject matter
• Ability to cull out only pediatric or adult topics
• Searching available within a medical topic
• Tabs for quick access
• The What’s New feature allows access to practice-changing medical updates
• Medical calculators
• Drug interactions
• CME is is tracked in the system, allowing for CME credit information for hospital privileges and board certification
• Flexibility of access: can use online or download content to mobile/desktop device (the online version is easy to use, although robust wireless reception is needed; offices with slow Internet benefit from the offline feature)
• Electronic health record integration is possible with the most popular systems, such as Epic, eClinicalWorks, NextGen, and Allscripts
• Patient education and medication interaction features embedded in the electronic health record; produced in collaboration with Lexicomp
• Integrated drug database
• Alerts for updates
• References have links to full-text articles
• The date of last update is easily found for verifying information accuracy
• May be provided free for clinicians who are a part of a university or large health system.

Weaknesses of UpToDate

• Articles can be lengthy, which is both a strength and a weakness. Searches can retrieve too much information.⁹ High volume of text can frustrate the user trying to find bulleted, easy-to-read facts. However, for the person looking for a narrative summary, the content is organized as narrative paragraphs with appropriate headers in the left margin, and the search function is robust and powerful.
• Each topic has a “Summary of Recommendations,” but answers here often require linking back to the main text.
• Patient information is sometimes at a high literacy level.
• Costs more than Dynamed. A 1-year subscription is $499 for a physician, but you have the option of paying $53 for a 30-day recurring subscription. Residents, fellows, and students can pay $199 for 1 year or $19 for a 30-day recurring subscription.
• The requirement to download means that users need to keep their version updated on all of their computers—in each of their examination rooms, for example.
• Concerns about conflict of interest arise because authors and editors may maintain financial relationships with companies that produce medications discussed in the articles they have written.

BUILDING YOUR OWN PERSONAL ONLINE REPOSITORY

Our previous article⁵ reviewed how to store information using tools such as Evernote and Diigo that allow information viewed on a web page to be exported to any online repository. This can be done using extensions for a web browser or by sending the information to a custom e-mail account for these services.

For information that a provider knows he or she will need repeatedly, storage in one system is actually the easiest method. Such a system can then incorporate key information from the summary tools we have reviewed here. The ideal “electronic filing cabinet” should have several features such as a the capability to label articles by topic, to separate or sort as you see fit, and a search function to find information quickly—making it a personalized and effective point-of-care resource.

STAYING AFLOAT

Clinicians make many decisions every day. In fact, the release of How Doctors Think (both publications) has led to increased research into how clinical decisions and diagnoses are formed.^16,17

With the medical literature expected to double every 73 days by 2020,¹⁸ there is an ever-widening ocean of information to sift through. With this onslaught, clinicians can no longer remain fully current. Instead, refining skills in accessing, sorting, and interpreting accurate scientific evidence efficiently is crucial to time spent actually caring for patients and coordinating their care.

Guidelines, algorithms, and comprehensive databases can aid clinicians in all aspects of care, from generating more complete differential diagnoses to managing disease-specific treatment. Individuals can first think about and list the qualities of a tool that are most important to them (eg, breadth of topics, frequency of updates, integration within their electronic health record, and cost) before focusing on a few applications or websites that meet those goals. With practice, point-of-care knowledge can become part of the everyday visit.

Effective integration into electronic health records will require design input from front-line clinicians. Otherwise, systems are prone to add too much “support” and overly rely on orthodox metrics and guidelines, resulting in alarm fatigue and frustration rather than facilitation.^19–23

OUR CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive point-of-care resources can play a significant role in helping busy clinicians provide best evidence-based care to their patients. Embedded clinical decision guides within an electronic health record are ideal, but low topic coverage has limited the usefulness of these systems.²⁴ Here are our conclusions:

Medscape, ePocrates, and Wikipedia are probably the most popular free resources. Dynamed has offered free subscriptions to Wikipedia’s top health editors with the hopes of correcting factual errors. Medscape has excellent features but is supported by sponsored content, which raises a concern about bias and potential time-consuming distractions.

Dynamed and UpToDate have both been reported to answer more questions than other sources.¹²

UpToDate has the largest repository, with each topic curated by an expert or experts in that subject. This content can be dense and difficult to scan quickly at the point of care, but this is balanced by the ability to search within a medical topic, which  has given it the fastest retrieval time.¹⁵ It does, however, allow authors and editors to maintain financial relationships with companies that produce medications discussed in the article.²²

Dynamed has the advantage in frequency of updates, clearest conflict-of-interest policy, and the least amount of conflict of interest. Its topic list is not as extensive as UpToDate’s due to the limitation of using only evidence-based medicine without expert opinion.

First Consult has high user satisfaction, but as a point-of-care resource it can be time-consuming to find the best source for the clinical question at hand, and its expanded access is costly.⁹

ART AND SCIENCE

Point-of-care resources do not solve all the complicated problems of patient care, and no single resource is ideal for all situations. A busy clinician has limited time to process the evolving literature to practice the best evidence-based medicine. Effective information access, quality of care provided, and the marginal time cost required create a complex calculus. Clinical decision-making remains an art and a science,²⁵ but these technologies help define a new era in its pursuit.

Ultimately, a clinician’s choice needs to correlate with a provider’s resources and style. This article has detailed several options available on the market today. This is a quickly evolving area of products and services. Longer term, users might consider a tool’s preferred key features when evaluating any current or future resource in order to choose the right ones for their practice.

CASE REVISITED

Before we leave for the weekend, we need a plan for Ms. Connecticut. To find appropriate recommendations for our patient, we search several of our point-of-care resources: UpToDate and Dynamed. Both resources have correct information according to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) guidelines.

UpToDate has a monograph of approximately 2,000 words on Lyme disease, which is lengthy but adds to clinical-decision making skills for a learner thinking through the decision. This service also has a patient handout highlighting the recommendations. The topic was last updated in 2016, but states that it is current with literature through January 2017. 

Dynamed has bulleted information that is quicker to digest, but essentially highlights the IDSA recommendations without the thought process behind them. It too, has patient resources with links to a variety of handouts from professional organizations such as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They last updated the topic January 31, 2017. 

When searching for the topic on both sites, a clinician can see the breadth of information in each program. However, this is also a detractor. Searching for Lyme disease prophylaxis on Dynamed brought up related data (that doxycycline is not FDA-approved for prophylaxis), but not the primary information. Likewise, the search under UpToDate first brought us to the patient information. Both articles have helpful tables and links to associated topics.

My partner chose the UpToDate article, in part to review the topic with a medical student. However, I used Dynamed for its quick bulleted information, as I was on call that evening and needed to return to the hospital.  We both came to the same conclusion, and Ms. Connecticut chose no prophylaxis even though her home is in an endemic area. She has done well.