Information
Overload
The computer age has made available massive amounts
of information, but managing the massive influx of new
healthcare information is a daunting task: Every
week there are a possible 40,000 new articles available
from a potential 10,000 journals. Medline indexes
1500 new articles per day. Even if 97% of these articles
lacked clinical relevance, a doctor would have to read
45 articles per day to keep current.
General practitioners have come to the conclusion that
they are not able to keep up with this massive load of
information and are increasingly relying on subject
matter experts for information, rather than reading
original research.
The following quote
epitomizes this sentiment. “Evidence-based medicine no
longer means evaluating original research. Instead, it
means using reputable sources that summarize the
evidence and make it accessible at the point of care,” (Family
Practice Management, Feb 2004).
To cope with the massive amount of new
information assaulting practitioners, we need to learn
the technique of
Information Mastery.
Information Mastery
Information mastery is the use of practical
methods to manage the vast amount of new scientific
evidence that is available. It marries the
experience of the practitioner, the needs of the
patient, and current pertinent evidence. It melds the
practical use of intellectual “hunting and foraging”
tools with the intimate knowledge of landmark studies.
From
my vantage there appears to be three options for
managing the massive input of new knowledge:
1)
Become an expert in a finite technique that does not add
significant amounts of new information and claim
ignorance about all other aspects of healthcare.
2)
Become a generalist and attempt to keep up with the trends in
healthcare, relying on trusted sources to interpret the
vast amount of original research available.
3)
Become a well read expert on a reasonably small piece of the
intellectual pie and have a more generalized knowledge
of the rest of healthcare, while maintaining a system
for rapidly accessing new information as needed.
The first option is passive and is not in the best
interests of the patient. The second removes the
physician from being a subject matter expert on any
level. The third option allows for the provider to be a
subject matter authority while maintaining general
knowledge on a broad level of information. In
integrated healthcare most doctors have chosen the third
option. I feel that this is the most practical and
beneficial to the patient, the doctor, and the
profession.
