Zoekresultaten

Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? A systematic integrative review

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.

Developing self evaluation of critical thinking and clinical reasoning skills

Structured clinical reasoning for exercise prescription in patients with comorbidity

Purpose: Exercise therapy is an effective intervention in a variety of chronic diseases. The prescription of exercise therapy is usually directed toward an index disease. The presence of comorbidity may require adaptations to the exercise program as intended for the index disease. This paper aims to structure the clinical reasoning process of health professionals when prescribing exercise therapy for the individual patient with an index disease and comorbidity.Methods: We adapted the previously published strategy for developing guidelines and protocols on comorbidity-adapted exercise to a version that can be used for individual exercise prescription.Results: Essential steps and considerations involved in prescribing an exercise program to an individual patient with comorbidity are described. A case description is used as an example of how the proposed strategy leads to clinical decisions.Conclusions: The proposed strategy may have a role in educational and professional development. The advanced clinical expertise needed for safe and effective exercise therapy in patients with a complex health status is emphasized.Implications for RehabilitationThe presence of comorbidity may require adaptations to exercise therapy.We describe the essential steps and considerations involved in prescribing an exercise program to an individual patient with an index disease and comorbidity.The proposed strategy can be used to structure the clinical reasoning process of health professionals.

Clinical reasoning in unimodal interventions in patients with non-specificneck pain in daily physiotherapy practice, a Delphi study

Background: Neck pain is the fourth major cause of disability worldwide but sufficient evidence regarding treatment is not available. This study is a first exploratory attempt to gain insight into and consensus on the clinical reasoning of experts in patients with non-specific neck pain. Objective: First, we aimed to inventory expert opinions regarding the indication for physiotherapy when, other than neck pain, no positive signs and symptoms and no positive diagnostic tests are present. Secondly, we aimed to determine which measurement instruments are being used and when they are used to support and objectify the clinical reasoning process. Finally, we wanted to establish consensus among experts regarding the use of unimodal interventions in patients with non-specific neck pain, i.e. their sequential linear clinical reasoning. Study design: A Delphi study.Methods:A Web-based Delphi study was conducted. Fifteen experts (teachers and researchers) participated. Results: Pain alone was deemed not be an indication for physiotherapy treatment. PROMs are mainly used for evaluative purposes and physical tests for diagnostic and evaluative purposes. Eighteen different variants of sequential linear clinical reasoning were investigated within our Delphi study. Only 6 out of 18 variants of sequential linear clinical reasoning reached more than 50% consensus. Conclusion: Pain alone is not an indication for physiotherapy. Insight has been obtained into which measurement instruments are used and when they are used. Consensus about sequential linear lines of clinical reasoning was poor.

Physiotherapists’ clinical use and acceptance of a telemonitoring platform during anterior cruciate ligament rehabilitation

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess physiotherapists’ clinical use and acceptance of a novel telemonitoring platform to facilitate the recording of measurements during rehabilitation of patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Additionally, suggestions for platform improvement were explored. Methods: Physiotherapists from seven Dutch private physiotherapy practices participated in the study. Data were collected through log files, a technology acceptance questionnaire and focus group meetings using the “buy a feature” method. Data regarding platform use and acceptance (7-point/11-point numeric rating scale) were descriptively analysed. Total scores were calculated for the features suggested to improve the platform, based on the priority rating (1 = nice to have, 2 = should have, 3 = must have). Results: Participating physiotherapists (N = 15, mean [SD] age 33.1 [9.1] years) together treated 52 patients during the study period. Platform use by the therapists was generally limited, with the number of log-ins per patient varying from 3 to 73. Overall, therapists’ acceptance of the platform was low to moderate, with average (SD) scores ranging from 2.5 (1.1) to 4.9 (1.5) on the 7-point Likert scale. The three most important suggestions for platform improvement were: (1) development of a native app, (2) system interoperability, and (3) flexibility regarding type and frequency of measurements. Conclusions: Even though health care professionals were involved in the design of the telemonitoring platform, use in routine care was limited. Physiotherapists recognized the relevance of using health technology, but there are still barriers to overcome in order to successfully implement eHealth in routine care.

Do knowledge, knowledge sources and reasoning skills affect the accuracy of nursing diagnoses?

BACKGROUND: This paper reports a study about the effect of knowledge sources, such as handbooks, an assessment format and a predefined record structure for diagnostic documentation, as well as the influence of knowledge, disposition toward critical thinking and reasoning skills, on the accuracy of nursing diagnoses.Knowledge sources can support nurses in deriving diagnoses. A nurse's disposition toward critical thinking and reasoning skills is also thought to influence the accuracy of his or her nursing diagnoses.METHOD: A randomised factorial design was used in 2008-2009 to determine the effect of knowledge sources. We used the following instruments to assess the influence of ready knowledge, disposition, and reasoning skills on the accuracy of diagnoses: (1) a knowledge inventory, (2) the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, and (3) the Health Science Reasoning Test. Nurses (n = 249) were randomly assigned to one of four factorial groups, and were instructed to derive diagnoses based on an assessment interview with a simulated patient/actor.RESULTS: The use of a predefined record structure resulted in a significantly higher accuracy of nursing diagnoses. A regression analysis reveals that almost half of the variance in the accuracy of diagnoses is explained by the use of a predefined record structure, a nurse's age and the reasoning skills of `deduction' and `analysis'.CONCLUSIONS: Improving nurses' dispositions toward critical thinking and reasoning skills, and the use of a predefined record structure, improves accuracy of nursing diagnoses.