Abstract
Using a case study analysis of the Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma, this article compares the workflows and knowledge requirements of primary care practice to the structure and content of a well-respected set of clinical guidelines. The authors show that there are discrepancies between physician workflow and the structure of the EPR-3, as well as between physicians’ knowledge requirements and the content of the EPR-3. The analysis suggests that closing the gap between medical knowledge and practice will require alternative ways to represent guidelines’ knowledge and recommendations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
