As I alluded to in the post ‘How and Why Junior Docs use Web 2.0′ (http://lifeinthefastlane.com/2009/07/how-and-why-junior-docs-use-web-20/) Web 2.0 is generally used for background knowledge needs rather than foreground needs (real-time clinical decision making).

If you do at the bedside literature searches using alternative search engines such as Mednar or GoPubMed you are using Web 2.0 for foreground knowledge.

I have also responded to other doctors’ concerns about clinical management issues on professional networking sites such as Multimedix.

I consider the use of feed aggregators as Web 2.0 because they separate information from the form they are created in and allow sharing. Together with podcasts, RSS feed aggregators play an important role in keeping me up-to-date with emerging evidence, and cater to knowledge needs on the background-foreground boundary.

I’ve also been known to look things up on this blog (the brainstem rule of 4 for instance, and the Tony Brown lecture series -- and my stingray tox conundrum came in very handy once too!).

If more of my colleagues were using twitter asking clinical questions may be an option (at the moment I’m restricted to asking Mike aka sandnsurf -- often Twitter is the best way to get hold of him anyway…).

For me clinically the most useful tools are still those like Tripdatabase, PubMed, NHS Clinical Knowlege summaries, Map of Medicine. Most of these do not have 2.0 content but might be improved be having so.

I have tried looking for answers to clinical questions on twitter but it hasn’t worked yet.

And I am not sure that aggregating RSS feeds is truly 2.o content.

We have discussed before the lack of doctors using social bookmarking sites such as delicious to aggregate clinical content. I rarely do this myself, preferring to look for info as I need it incase guidelines have changed.

So, it would really help me if anyone reading this could give an example of when some 2.0 content helped them with a piece of clinical decision making.

Thanks
Anne Marie