Amsterdam UMC, Research in Education, Faculty of Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Amsterdam UMC, Research in Education, Faculty of Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 23;11(9):e049862. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049862.
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.
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 approval is not required. The outcomes will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications.
临床推理是所有医疗保健专业人员的一项主要能力，已经在每个专业领域进行了定义和研究。我们不知道医生和护理临床推理之间的内容、过程和结果是否具有可比性。本文旨在制定一个综合评价方案，以分析和综合护理和医学临床推理文献。它建立在护理和医学临床推理研究的历史基础上，旨在提高临床推理的概念清晰度，增加在患者护理、教育和研究方面合作的相互理解。
本综合评价按照 Whittmore 和 Knafl 描述的步骤进行：问题识别、文献检索、数据评估、数据分析和呈现。最初的系统和全面的搜索策略是与临床图书馆员合作制定的，并在电子数据库 PubMed、CINAHL、PsycInfo 和 Web of Science 中进行，时间为 2020 年 3 月 30 日至 2020 年 5 月 27 日。包括实证和理论研究。此次搜索将伴随着祖先搜索和有针对性的抽样。将采用 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 流程图总结选择过程。将使用检查表评估合格研究的质量，检查表适用于多种研究方法。数据分析受 Walker 和 Avant 的概念分析以及 Cianciolo 和 Regehr 的干预措施的分层分析的启发。我们将根据这些层和特征提取纳入研究的数据，以捕捉两个专业领域临床推理的多方面性质。数据将以有效性矩阵的形式呈现，以方便比较和对比。
不需要伦理批准。结果将通过会议演示和出版物传播。
