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:When physicians and nurses are looking at the same patient, they may not see the same picture. If assuming that the clinical reasoning of both professions is alike and ignoring possible differences, aspects essential for care can be overlooked. Understanding the multifaceted concept of clinical reasoning of both professions may provide insight into the nature and purpose of their practices and benefit patient care, education and research. We aimed to identify, compare and contrast the documented features of clinical reasoning of physicians and nurses through the lens of layered analysis and to conduct a simultaneous concept analysis. The protocol of this systematic integrative review was published doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049862. A comprehensive search was performed in four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and Web of Science) from 30th March 2020 to 27th May 2020. A total of 69 Empirical and theoretical journal articles about clinical reasoning of practitioners were included: 27 nursing, 37 medical, and five combining both perspectives. Two reviewers screened the identified papers for eligibility and assessed the quality of the methodologically diverse articles. We used an onion model, based on three layers: Philosophy, Principles, and Techniques to extract and organize the data. Commonalities and differences were identified on professional paradigms, theories, intentions, content, antecedents, attributes, outcomes, and contextual factors. The detected philosophical differences were located on a care-cure and subjective-objective continuum. We observed four principle contrasts: a broad or narrow focus, consideration of the patient as such or of the patient and his relatives, hypotheses to explain or to understand, and argumentation based on causality or association. In the technical layer a difference in the professional concepts of diagnosis and the degree of patient involvement in the reasoning process were perceived. Clinical reasoning can be analysed by breaking it down into layers, and the onion model resulted in detailed features. Subsequently insight was obtained in the differences between nursing and medical reasoning. The origin of these differences is in the philosophical layer (professional paradigms, intentions). This review can be used as a first step toward gaining a better understanding and collaboration in patient care, education and research across the nursing and medical professions.

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.