Dataset Information

Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? An integrative review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Clinical reasoning, a major competency for all health professionals, has been defined and studied 'within' each profession. We do not know if content, process and outcomes are comparable 'between' physician and nursing clinical reasoning. This paper aims to set up a protocol for an integrative review to analyse and synthesise the scientific nursing and medical clinical reasoning literature. It builds on the history of nursing and medical clinical reasoning research and aims to create a higher level of conceptual clarity of clinical reasoning, to increase mutual understanding in collaboration in patient care, education and research.

Methods and analysis

This integrative review follows stepwise the methods described by Whittmore and Knafl: problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis and presentation.The initial systematic and comprehensive search strategy is developed in collaboration with the clinical librarian and is performed in electronic databases, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science from 30 March 2020 to 27 May 2020. Empirical and theoretical studies are included. This search will be accompanied by ancestry searching and purposeful sampling. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart will summarise the selection process. The quality of eligible studies will be evaluated with a checklist, suitable for diverse study methods.The data analysis is inspired by concept analysis of Walker and Avant and layered analysis of an intervention of Cianciolo and Regehr. We will extract the data of the included studies conforming these layers and features, to capture the multifaceted nature of clinical reasoning in both professions. The data will be presented in a validity matrix to facilitate comparing and contrasting.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval is not required. The outcomes will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications.

SUBMITTER: Vreugdenhil J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8461719 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Clinical reasoning is the process of gathering and understanding information conducted by clinicians in the emergency medical services (EMS) so as to make informed decisions. Research on clinical reasoning spans several disciplines, but a comprehensive view of the process is lacking. To our knowledge, no review of clinical reasoning in the EMS has been conducted.AimThe aim was to investigate the nature, deployment, and factors influencing EMS clinicians' clinical reasoning by means of a review.MethodData was collected through searches in electronic databases, networking among research teams, colleagues and friends, "grey literature," and through ancestry searches. A total of 38 articles were deemed eligible for inclusion and were analyzed using descriptive thematic analysis. The analysis resulted in an overarching finding - namely, the importance for EMS clinicians to adjust for perceived control in unpredictable situations. Within this finding, 3 themes emerged in terms of EMS clinicians' clinical reasoning: (1) maintaining a holistic view of the patient; (2) keeping an open mind; and (3) improving through criticism. Seven subthemes subsequently emerged from these three themes.ResultsThis review showed that EMS clinicians' clinical reasoning begins with the information that they are given about a patient. Based on this information, clinicians calculate the best route to the patient and which equipment to use, and they also assess potential risks. They need to be constantly aware of what is happening on the scene and with the patient and strive to control the situation. This striving also enables EMS clinicians to work safely and effectively in relation to the patient, their relatives, other clinicians, associated organizations, and the wider community. A lack of contextually appropriate guidelines results in the need for creativity and forces EMS clinicians to use "workarounds" to solve issues beyond the scope of the guidelines available. In addition, they often lack organizational support and fear repercussions such as litigation, unemployment, or blame by their EMS or healthcare organization or by patients and relatives.ConclusionClinical reasoning is influenced by several factors. Further research is needed to determine which influencing factors can be addressed through interventions to minimize their impact on patient outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionGlobally, nurse practitioner (NP) has become an important nursing role in the pursuit of a more efficient healthcare, possessing the necessary expert skills to work as autonomous practitioners. Nevertheless, there are barriers in the implementation of this role. One barrier concerns the different levels of education required for NPs. Previous studies demonstrate the importance of acting for a uniform international education. The aim of the scoping review was to compile research about education to become an NP, focusing on the content of curricula and learning objectives.Methods and analysisThe six-stage methodological framework by Arksey and O'Malley will guide the scoping review through the following stages: identifying the research questions; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; collating, summarising and reporting the results; and consultation. The research questions are as follows: What is the content of curricula in NP programmes? What are the learning objectives in NP programmes? The literature searches will be conducted between March and June 2019 in the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL and ERIC, followed by hand searching reference lists of key studies. Grey literature will be searched in Google Scholar, Libsearch, existing networks and relevant organisations. Two researchers will screen titles and abstracts. Included full-text articles will be screened by three researchers and assessed for their methodological quality by the use of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. The PreferredReporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram will be used to demonstrate included and excluded articles. The findings will be presented through a numerical summary of the included articles, followed by a thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval is not required for a scoping review. The scoping review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Additionally, the findings will be disseminated to stakeholders representing political, educational, professional and union organisations through a Delphi study as part of the consultation stage of the Arksey and O'Malleys framework.

Project description:PurposeThe Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) programs have grown exponentially for the last 10 years across the United States. However, the intra-professional collaboration among DNP and PhD scholars is not clearly demonstrated in the literature as it relates to frequency, training models, and the outcomes of these collaborations on translation. The purposes of this paper are to: (1) examine the role for DNP nurses in symptom science research and (2) describe training models to cultivate the PhD-DNP collaboration to strengthen the translation of discoveries from nursing research, to facilitate implementation of discoveries, and to improve clinical practice of nurses.MethodsA targeted review of the literature was conducted to identify, (1) the role of the DNP, (2) examples of PhD-DNP collaborations, (3) training models that support collaborations, and (4) the outcomes of these intra-professional collaborations.ResultsTwo articles reported on PhD-DNP collaboration within a university setting; however, they did not address how the partnership was modeled. One additional article described an academic-hospital partnership model aimed at MSN-prepared advanced practice nurses (APRN) by which outcomes were measured. No examples were found outside of academic settings. The National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) has established the Symptom Science Center (SSC) with an interest in training the next generation of symptom scientists. By developing a training curriculum through the NINR SSC, DNP-prepared students and practitioners can be exposed to the research enterprise and potentially develop early partnerships with PhD-prepared students and scholars that lead to research translation.ConclusionThe NINR Department of Intramural Research (DIR) and National Institutes of Health Clinical Center are dedicated to building stronger ties between PhD- and DNP-prepared scientists. The SSC can serve as an optimal platform to promote the collaboration of PhD and DNP nurses to advance symptom science translation.Clinical relevanceNurses have a remarkable role in early detection of disease progression. Training opportunities to cultivate the PhD-DNP collaboration have significant relevance for expediting the translation of nursing science to nursing practice.

Project description:BackgroundThis integrative review synthesises research studies that have investigated the perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in primary health care. The aggregation of evidence on barriers and facilitators to working collaboratively and experiences about the processes of collaboration is of value to understand success factors and factors that impede collaborative working relationships.MethodsAn integrative review, which used systematic review processes, was undertaken to summarise qualitative and quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2012. Databases searched were the Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Informit and ProQuest. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Study findings were extracted relating to a) barriers and facilitators to collaborative working and b) views and experiences about the process of collaboration. The findings were narratively synthesised, supported by tabulation.Results27 studies conducted in seven different countries met the inclusion criteria. Content analysis identified a number of barriers and facilitators of collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners. By means of data comparison five themes were developed in relation to perceptions and understanding of collaboration. Nurse practitioners and medical practitioners have differing views on the essentials of collaboration and on supervision and autonomous nurse practitioner practice. Medical practitioners who have a working experience with NPs express more positive attitudes towards collaboration. Both professional groups report concerns and negative experiences with collaborative practice but also value certain advantages of collaboration.ConclusionsThe review shows that working in collaboration is a slow progression. Exposure to working together helps to overcome professional hurdles, dispel concerns and provide clarity around roles and the meaning of collaboration of NPs and MPs. Guidelines on liability and better funding strategies are necessary to facilitate collaborative practice whether barriers lie in individual behaviours or in broader policies.

Project description:IntroductionPrimary healthcare nurse practitioners (PHCNPs) practice in a wide range of clinical settings and with diverse patient populations. Several systematic reviews have examined outcomes of PHCNP roles. However, there is a lack of consistency in the definitions used for the PHCNP role across the reviews. The identification of indicators sensitive to PHCNP practice from the perspective of patients, providers and the healthcare system will allow researchers, clinicians and decision-makers to understand how these providers contribute to outcomes of care.Methods and analysisA review of systematic reviews is proposed to describe the current state of knowledge about indicators sensitive to PHCNP practice using recognised role definitions. Outcomes of interest include any outcome indicator measuring the effectiveness of PHCNPs. We will limit our search to 2010 onwards to capture the most up-to-date trends. The following electronic databases will be searched: Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews and Controlled Trials Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, EMBASE, Global Health, Health Economics Evaluation Database, Health Evidence, HealthStar, Health Systems Evidence, Joanna Briggs Institute, Medline, PDQ-Evidence, PubMed and Web of Science. The search strategies will be reviewed by an academic librarian. Reference lists of all relevant publications will be reviewed. Grey literature will be searched from 2010 onwards, and will include: CADTH Information Services, CADTH's Grey Matters tool, OpenGrey, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses and WHO. The PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews will be searched to identify registered review protocols. The review protocol was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols recommendations. A narrative synthesis will be used to summarise study findings.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for the study. The data used in the study will be abstracted from published systematic reviews. Dissemination strategies will include peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and presentations to key stakeholders.Prospero registration numberCRD42020198182.

Project description:IntroductionUniversal access to preventative healthcare is essential to children's health. Registered nurses (RN) are well positioned to deliver well-child care within primary care settings; however, RN role implementation varies widely in this sector and the scope of literature that examines the influence of organisational attributes on nursing contributions to well-child care is not well understood. The aim of this scoping review is to identify the scope and characteristics of the literature related to organisational attributes that act as barriers to, or facilitators for RN delivery of well-child care within the context of primary care in high-income countries.Methods and analysisThe Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology will be used to conduct this review. Databases that will be accessed include Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE and Embase. Inclusion criteria includes articles with a focus on RNs who deliver well-child care in primary care settings. Literature that meets this inclusion criteria will be included in the study. Covidence software platform will be used to review citations and full-text articles. Titles, abstracts and full-text articles will be reviewed independently by two reviewers. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with an additional reviewer. Data will be extracted and organised according to the dimensions outlined in the nursing care organisation conceptual framework (NCOF). Principles of the 'best fit' framework synthesis will guide the data analysis approach and the NCOF will act as the framework for data coding and analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis scoping review will undertake a secondary analysis of data already published and does not require ethical approval. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations targeting stakeholders involved in nursing practice and the delivery of well-child care.Trial registration detailsBraithwaite, S., Tranmer, J., Lukewich, J., & Macdonald, D. (2021, March 31). Protocol for a Scoping Review of the Influence of Organisational Attributes on Registered Nurse Contributions to Well-child Care. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UZYX5.