School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.
Research Centre on Aging, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Estrie - Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CIUSSS de l'Estrie - CHUS), Sherbrooke, Canada.
Health Soc Care Community. 2020 Jul;28(4):1209-1219. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12954. Epub 2020 Jan 31.
Clinical reasoning (CR) is the cognitive process that therapists use to plan, direct, perform and reflect on client care. Linked to intervention efficiency and quality, CR is a core competency that occurs within an institutional context (legal, regulatory, administrative and organisational elements). Because this context can shape how community therapists think about their clients' care, its involvement in their CR could have a major impact on the interventions delivered. However, little is known about this involvement. Our study thus aimed to describe the elements of the institutional context involved in community therapists' CR. From March 2012 to June 2014, we conducted an institutional ethnography (IE) inquiry in three Health and Social Services Centres in Québec (Canada). We observed participants and conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 occupational therapists. We also interviewed 12 secondary key informants (colleagues and managers) and collected administrative documents (n = 50). We analysed data using the IE process. Of the 13 elements of the institutional context identified, we found that four are almost constantly involved in participants' CR. These four elements, that is, institutional procedures, organisation's basket of services, occupational therapists' mandate and wait times for their services, restrictively shape CR. Specifically, occupational therapists restrict their representation of the client's situation and exploration of potential solutions to what is possible within the bounds of these four elements. In light of such restrictions on the way they think about their clients' care, therapists should pay close attention to the elements of their own institutional context and how they are involved in their CR. Because of its potentially important impact on the future of professions (e.g. further restrictions on professionals' role, reduced contribution to population health and well-being), this involvement of the institutional context in CR concerns all professionals, be they clinicians, educators, researchers or regulatory college officers.
临床推理(CR)是治疗师用于规划、指导、执行和反思客户护理的认知过程。与干预效率和质量相关联,CR 是一种核心能力,它发生在机构背景下(法律、监管、行政和组织要素)。由于这种背景可以影响社区治疗师如何思考客户的护理,因此它在他们的 CR 中的参与可能对提供的干预措施产生重大影响。然而,人们对此知之甚少。因此,我们的研究旨在描述社区治疗师 CR 中涉及的机构背景要素。从 2012 年 3 月到 2014 年 6 月,我们在魁北克(加拿大)的三个卫生和社会服务中心进行了一项制度民族志(IE)调查。我们观察了参与者并对 10 名职业治疗师进行了半结构化访谈。我们还采访了 12 名次要关键信息员(同事和经理)并收集了管理文件(n=50)。我们使用 IE 过程分析数据。在所确定的 13 个机构背景要素中,我们发现有四个几乎始终参与参与者的 CR。这四个要素,即机构程序、组织的服务篮子、职业治疗师的任务和他们的服务等待时间,严格限制了 CR。具体来说,职业治疗师将客户情况的代表性和对潜在解决方案的探索限制在这四个要素的范围内。鉴于他们对客户护理的思考方式受到这种限制,治疗师应该密切关注自己机构背景的要素以及他们如何参与自己的 CR。由于这种机构背景对专业人员未来的潜在重要影响(例如对专业人员角色的进一步限制、对人口健康和福祉的贡献减少),这种参与涉及所有专业人员,无论是临床医生、教育工作者、研究人员还是监管学院官员。