Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2006;332:129-130 (21 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7534.129
Doctors are much more than simple conduits for clinical evidence
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Choudry and colleagues' paper in this issue (p 141) is a brave attempt to quantify the under-recognised notion of personal knowledge in clinical practice.1 2 They carefully analysed the prescribing decisions of hospital doctors caring for patients with atrial fibrillation, before and after their exposure to a patient with an adverse eventeither serious haemorrhage when taking warfarin, or a thromboembolic event while not taking warfarin. The researchers wanted to know whether doctors' knowledge of a previous adverse event affected their subsequent prescribing.
For the group of doctors who were exposed to patients with adverse bleeding events, and who cared for atrial fibrillation patients subsequently, the odds that they would prescribe warfarin were 21% lower for subsequent patients. There was no statistically significant change in warfarin prescribing after a doctor cared for a patient who had had a stroke while not taking warfarin, norin support of the specificity of
Kieran Sweeney, honorary clinical senior lecturer in general practice
Peninsula Medical School, Exeter EX2 5DW
(kieran.sweeney@pms.ac.uk)
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.