Research Centre for Clinical and Community Practice Innovation, Griffith University and Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2011 Mar;48(3):318-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.07.014. Epub 2010 Nov 5.
There is recognition that different data collection methods gather different aspects of decision making data. Although the selection of a method to explore nurses' decision making is partially determined by the theoretical perspective that informs each study, some flexibility remains. Description of the relative benefits of each method will enable future researchers to selectively identify which method is most suited to answering their specific research question.
To describe the decisions identified using observation and think aloud in the study of decision making related to sedation assessment and management within intensive care, as well as to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each method in the context of this study.
Secondary analysis of data collected during an observational study.
This study was conducted in one intensive care unit in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia.
Seven self-identified expert critical care nurses.
Nurses providing sedation management for a critically ill patient were observed and asked to think aloud during 2h of care, with follow-up interviews conducted up to 4 days later to clarify information collected. Data were analysed independently by an investigator not involved in data collection. Analysis involved identification of decision tasks with comparison of number and type of tasks identified with each of the two data collection techniques.
Assessment and management were the most common types of sedation decisions made by nurses in this study. A total of 130 decisions were identified using observation and 209 decisions were identified using think aloud. More management decisions were identified through observation, while more assessment decisions were identified through think aloud.
The two data collection methods of think aloud and observation resulted in identification of different decision tasks. These results suggest an essential consideration in design of decision making studies is the method of data collection and the type of decision data that is likely to be identified. It may be appropriate to use a combination of data collection methods to optimise the completeness of data capture.
不同的数据收集方法收集决策数据的不同方面,这一点已得到认可。尽管选择一种方法来探索护士的决策在一定程度上取决于为每项研究提供信息的理论视角,但仍存在一定的灵活性。描述每种方法的相对优势将使未来的研究人员能够有针对性地确定哪种方法最适合回答他们特定的研究问题。
描述在重症监护中与镇静评估和管理相关的决策研究中使用观察和出声思维识别的决策,并根据本研究检查每种方法的优缺点。
对观察性研究中收集的数据进行二次分析。
本研究在澳大利亚一家三级教学医院的一个重症监护病房进行。
7 名自我认定的重症监护专家护士。
在 2 小时的护理过程中观察提供镇静管理的护士,并要求他们在护理过程中出声思考,之后在 4 天内进行跟进访谈以澄清收集到的信息。由未参与数据收集的调查员独立分析数据。分析包括识别决策任务,并比较两种数据收集技术识别的任务数量和类型。
评估和管理是护士在本研究中做出的最常见的镇静决策类型。使用观察法共识别出 130 项决策,使用出声思维法共识别出 209 项决策。通过观察识别出更多的管理决策,而通过出声思维识别出更多的评估决策。
出声思维和观察这两种数据收集方法导致识别出不同的决策任务。这些结果表明,在决策研究设计中,必须考虑数据收集方法和可能识别出的决策数据类型。使用组合数据收集方法可能是优化数据采集完整性的合适方法。