Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Module 2 Part 3 Retrieval-Compare & Contrast

The electronic index I used was PubMed. The Guideline index was the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), and the web search engine of google. As mentioned in my previous blog, PubMed‘s database facilitated my ability to construct an efficient search because of the nature of the database itself. This is a good place to conduct a search and find articles to do an extensive literature review. The NGC index is useful for very specific search inquiries since options for type of disease, category, year, type of research/literature review, target population, etc. may be chosen. Since it is a database for guidelines, it was not extremely helpful with my search on prescription drug abuse, but I can see the potential if I wanted to find out specific guidelines for prescribing medications. For me, this was more of a “what nurses should be doing, the gold standard for care,” document. Google had a vast array of links, it was overwhelming to decide which website would contain the most correct and helpful information. I don’t discount google just because it’s not peer reviewed, but there is a lot of information in the world and the internet is one way lay people can access it. Clearly, in an academic setting, PubMed and other electronic indices stand superior to google. The problem with google is that every website seems to validate what is published on their website. I think the key is knowing which ones are sponsored by legit governmental groups, like the NIH or the CDC.

Alternative strategies for retrieving relevant information are text books and clinical resources similar to MICROMEDEX. The University of Utah has access to Mosby’s Nursing Skills, a tool very similar to the NGC guidelines. These aren’t from peer reviewed journals, but provide very accurate information relevant for nursing practice. The important difference between electronic indices and textbooks and clinical resources is the assumption that textbooks and clinical resources make use of evidence based practice. Hopefully the information is from research and literature, but as we all know, knowing something and actually doing it are two different things.

1 comment:

  1. I also utilize NGC for looking at standards. I find it to be well suited for clinical practice though it sometimes take some searching. I also like to utilize up=to-date in my practice as it is fast, easy and user friendly.

    ReplyDelete