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.

Illness scripts in nursing: Directed content analysis.

AIMS: To explore the possible extension of the illness script theory used in medicine to the nursing context. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study. METHODS: The study was conducted between September 2019 and March 2020. Expert nurses were asked to think aloud about 20 patient problems in nursing. A directed content analysis approach including quantitative data processing was used to analyse the transcribed data. RESULTS: Through the analysis of 3912 statements, scripts were identified and a nursing script model is proposed; the medical illness script, including enabling conditions, fault and consequences, is extended with management, boundary, impact, occurrence and explicative statements. Nurses often used explicative statements when pathophysiological causes are absent or unknown. To explore the applicability of Illness script theory we analysed scripts' richness and maturity with descriptive statistics. Expert nurses, like medical experts, had rich knowledge of consequences, explicative statements and management of familiar patient problems. CONCLUSION: The knowledge of expert nurses about patient problems can be described in scripts; the components of medical illness scripts are also relevant in nursing. We propose to extend the original illness script concept with management, explicative statements, boundary, impact and occurrence, to enlarge the applicability of illness scripts in the nursing domain. IMPACT: Illness scripts guide clinical reasoning in patient care. Insights into illness scripts of nursing experts is a necessary first step to develop goals or guidelines for student nurses' development of clinical reasoning. It might lay the groundwork for future educational strategies.

Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? An integrative review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 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 AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The outcomes will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications.

Development and validation of Dutch version of Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric in hospital practice: An instrument design study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning in patient care is a skill that cannot be observed directly. So far, no reliable, valid instrument exists for the assessment of nursing students' clinical reasoning skills in hospital practice. Lasater's clinical judgment rubric (LCJR), based on Tanner's model "Thinking like a nurse" has been tested, mainly in academic simulation settings. OBJECTIVES: The aim is to develop a Dutch version of the LCJR (D-LCJR) and to test its psychometric properties when used in a hospital traineeship context. DESIGN: A mixed-model approach was used to develop and to validate the instrument. SETTING: Ten dedicated educational units in a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A well-mixed group of 52 nursing students, nurse coaches and nurse educators. METHODS: A Delphi panel developed the D-LCJR. Students' clinical reasoning skills were assessed "live" by nurse coaches, nurse educators and students who rated themselves. The psychometric properties tested during the assessment process are reliability, reproducibility, content validity and construct validity by testing two hypothesis: 1) a positive correlation between assessed and self-reported sum scores (convergent validity) and 2) a linear relation between experience and sum score (clinical validity). RESULTS: The obtained D-LCJR was found to be internally consistent, Cronbach's alpha 0.93. The rubric is also reproducible with intraclass correlations between 0.69 and 0.78. Experts judged it to be content valid. The two hypothesis were both tested significant, supporting evidence for construct validity. CONCLUSION: The translated and modified LCJR, is a promising tool for the evaluation of nursing students' development in clinical reasoning in hospital traineeships, by students, nurse coaches and nurse educators. More evidence on construct validity is necessary, in particular for students at the end of their hospital traineeship. Based on our research, the D-LCJR applied in hospital traineeships is a usable and reliable tool.