• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

像医生一样推理还是像护士一样推理?一项系统的综合综述。

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

作者信息

Vreugdenhil Jettie, Somra Sunia, Ket Hans, Custers Eugène J F M, Reinders Marcel E, Dobber Jos, Kusurkar Rashmi A

机构信息

Research in Education, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

VUmc Amstel Academie, Institute for Education and Training, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

出版信息

Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Mar 3;10:1017783. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1017783. eCollection 2023.

DOI:10.3389/fmed.2023.1017783
PMID:36936242
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10020202/
Abstract

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.

摘要

当医生和护士观察同一位患者时,他们看到的情况可能并不相同。如果假定两个职业的临床推理相似而忽略可能存在的差异,那么护理中至关重要的方面可能会被忽视。理解两个职业临床推理的多面概念,可能有助于洞察他们实践的本质和目的,并有益于患者护理、教育和研究。我们旨在通过分层分析的视角识别、比较和对比医生和护士临床推理的记录特征,并进行同步概念分析。本系统综合评价的方案已发表,doi: 10.1136/bmjopen - 2021 - 049862。于2020年3月30日至2020年5月27日在四个数据库(PubMed、CINAHL、Psychinfo和Web of Science)中进行了全面检索。共纳入69篇关于从业者临床推理的实证和理论期刊文章:27篇护理领域的、37篇医学领域的以及5篇结合了两种视角的。两名评审员筛选已识别的论文以确定其是否符合要求,并评估方法多样的文章的质量。我们使用了一个基于哲学、原则和技术三层的洋葱模型来提取和组织数据。在专业范式、理论、意图、内容、前提、属性、结果和背景因素方面识别出了共性和差异。检测到的哲学差异存在于护理 - 治疗以及主观 - 客观的连续统上。我们观察到四个原则性对比:关注范围宽泛或狭窄、将患者本身还是患者及其亲属纳入考虑、用于解释或理解的假设,以及基于因果关系或关联的论证。在技术层面,察觉到诊断的专业概念以及患者在推理过程中的参与程度存在差异。临床推理可以通过分层进行分析,洋葱模型得出了详细特征。随后了解到了护理和医学推理之间的差异。这些差异源于哲学层面(专业范式、意图)。本综述可作为迈向更好地理解护理和医学专业在患者护理、教育和研究方面的合作的第一步。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ca6/10020202/4f9c7ec9898b/fmed-10-1017783-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ca6/10020202/59d386243bbd/fmed-10-1017783-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ca6/10020202/4f9c7ec9898b/fmed-10-1017783-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ca6/10020202/59d386243bbd/fmed-10-1017783-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0ca6/10020202/4f9c7ec9898b/fmed-10-1017783-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? A systematic integrative review.像医生一样推理还是像护士一样推理?一项系统的综合综述。
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Mar 3;10:1017783. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1017783. eCollection 2023.
2
Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? An integrative review protocol.像医生那样推理还是像护士那样推理?一项综合综述方案。
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 23;11(9):e049862. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049862.
3
4
Student and educator experiences of maternal-child simulation-based learning: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol.基于母婴模拟学习的学生和教育工作者体验:定性证据协议的系统评价
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):14-26. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1694.
5
Promoting and supporting self-management for adults living in the community with physical chronic illness: A systematic review of the effectiveness and meaningfulness of the patient-practitioner encounter.促进和支持社区中患有慢性身体疾病的成年人进行自我管理:对医患互动的有效性和意义的系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(13):492-582. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907130-00001.
6
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
7
The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.基于互联网的电子学习对临床医生行为和患者结局的有效性:一项系统评价方案。
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):52-64. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1919.
8
The Experience and Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners in Orthopaedic Settings: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.执业护士在骨科环境中的经验与成效:一项全面的系统评价
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(42 Suppl):1-22. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-249.
9
From the History of the Croatian Dermatovenereological Society - The Croatian Medical Association and an Overview of Important Information Regarding the Journal Acta Dermatovenerologica Croatica.克罗地亚皮肤性病学会史——克罗地亚医学协会及《克罗地亚皮肤性病学学报》重要信息概述
Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2018 Dec;26(4):344-348.
10
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Newly Graduated Nurses' Experiences Regarding Job Readiness and Their Development of Professional Authority: A Qualitative Study.新毕业护士关于工作准备情况及其专业权威发展的经历:一项定性研究。
SAGE Open Nurs. 2025 Mar 21;11:23779608251330041. doi: 10.1177/23779608251330041. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
2
Context factors in clinical decision-making: a scoping review.临床决策中的背景因素:一项范围综述
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2025 Mar 17;25(1):133. doi: 10.1186/s12911-025-02965-1.
3
Collaborative Development of Feedback Concept Maps for Virtual Patient-Based Clinical Reasoning Education: Mixed Methods Study.

本文引用的文献

1
Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? An integrative review protocol.像医生那样推理还是像护士那样推理?一项综合综述方案。
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 23;11(9):e049862. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049862.
2
Illness scripts in nursing: Directed content analysis.护理中的疾病脚本:有针对性的内容分析。
J Adv Nurs. 2022 Jan;78(1):201-210. doi: 10.1111/jan.15011. Epub 2021 Aug 11.
3
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.PRISMA 2020 声明:系统评价报告的更新指南。
基于虚拟患者的临床推理教育反馈概念图的协同开发:混合方法研究
JMIR Med Educ. 2025 Jan 30;11:e57331. doi: 10.2196/57331.
4
The Relationships among communication competence, professional autonomy and clinical reasoning competence in oncology nurses.肿瘤护士沟通能力、专业自主性与临床推理能力的关系。
Nurs Open. 2024 Aug;11(8):e70003. doi: 10.1002/nop2.70003.
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
4
Re-visioning clinical reasoning, or stepping out from the skull.重新构想临床推理,或走出颅骨。
Med Teach. 2021 Apr;43(4):456-462. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1859098. Epub 2020 Dec 15.
5
Unravelling the polyphony in clinical reasoning research in medical education.揭示医学教育中临床推理研究的复调现象。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2021 Apr;27(2):438-450. doi: 10.1111/jep.13432. Epub 2020 Jun 22.
6
Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review.跨健康专业映射临床推理文献:范围综述。
BMC Med Educ. 2020 Apr 7;20(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02012-9.
7
Philosophy of Science Series: Harnessing the Multidisciplinary Edge Effect by Exploring Paradigms, Ontologies, Epistemologies, Axiologies, and Methodologies.科学哲学系列:通过探索范式、本体论、认识论、价值论和方法论,利用多学科边缘效应。
Acad Med. 2020 May;95(5):686-689. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003142.
8
Reasoning processes in clinical reasoning: from the perspective of cognitive psychology.临床推理中的推理过程:从认知心理学的视角
Korean J Med Educ. 2019 Dec;31(4):299-308. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2019.140. Epub 2019 Nov 29.
9
Five decades of research and theorization on clinical reasoning: a critical review.临床推理的五十年研究与理论化:批判性综述
Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019 Aug 27;10:703-716. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S213492. eCollection 2019.
10
Diagnostic knowing in general practice: interpretative action and reflexivity.全科医学中的诊断认识:解释性行动与反思性。
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2019 Dec;37(4):393-401. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2019.1663592. Epub 2019 Sep 11.