A dimensional analysis of experienced intensive care unit nurses' clinical decision-making for bleeding after cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding following cardiac surgery is common and serious, yet a gap persists in understanding how experienced intensive care nurses identify and respond to such complications. AIM: To describe the clinical decision-making of experienced intensive care unit nurses in addressing bleeding after cardiac surgery. STUDY DESIGN: This qualitative study adopted the Recognition-Primed Decision Model as its theoretical framework. Thirty-nine experienced nurses from four adult intensive care units participated in semi-structured interviews based on the critical decision method. The interviews explored their clinical judgements and decisions in bleeding situations, and data were analysed through dimensional analysis, an alternative to grounded theory. RESULTS: Participants maintained consistent vigilance towards post-cardiac surgery bleeding, recognizing it through a haemorrhagic dimension associated with blood loss and chest drainage and a hypovolemic dimension focusing on the repercussions of reduced blood volume. These dimensions organized their understanding of bleeding types (i.e., normal, medical, surgical, tamponade) and necessary actions. Their decision-making encompassed monitoring bleeding, identifying the cause, stopping the bleeding, stabilizing haemodynamic and supporting the patient and family. Participants also adapted their actions to specific circumstances, including local practices, professional autonomy, interprofessional dynamics and resource availability. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' decision-making was shaped by their personal attributes, the patient's condition and contextual circumstances, underscoring their expertise and pivotal role in anticipating actions and adapting to diverse conditions. The concept of actionability emerged as the central dimension explaining their decision-making, defined as the capability to implement actions towards specific goals within the possibilities and constraints of a situation. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study underscores the need for continual updates to care protocols to align with current evidence and for quality improvement initiatives to close existing practice gaps. Exploring the concept of actionability further, developing adaptability-focused educational programmes, and understanding decision-making intricacies are crucial for informing nursing education and decision-support systems.

Measurement properties of self-reported clinical decision-making instruments in nursing: A COSMIN systematic review.

Background: Nurses' clinical decision-making, i.e., the data collection, analysis, and evaluation process through which they reach clinical judgements and makes clinical decisions, is at the core of nursing practice and essential to provide safe and quality care. Instruments to assess nurses' perceptions of their clinical decision-making abilities or skills have been developed for research and education. Thus, it is essential to determine the most valid and reliable instruments available to reflect nurses' self-reported clinical decision-making accurately. Objective: To evaluate the measurement properties of self-reported clinical decision-making instruments in nursing. Methods: A systematic review based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) was conducted (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022364549). Five bibliographical databases were searched in July 2022 using descriptors and keywords related to nurses, clinical decision-making, and studies on measurement properties. Two independent reviewers conducted reference selection and data extraction. The evaluation of the instruments' measurement properties involved assessing the quality of the studies, the quality of each measurement property (i.e., validity, reliability, responsiveness), and the quality of evidence based on the COSMIN. Results: Nine instruments evaluated in eleven studies with registered nurses or nursing students from various clinical contexts were identified. Five of the nine instruments were originals; four were translations or adaptations. Most focused on analytical and intuitive decision-making, although some were based on clinical judgment and clinical reasoning theories. Structural validity and internal consistency were the most frequently reported measurement properties; other properties, such as measurement error, criterion validity, and responsiveness, were not assessed for any instruments. A gap was also identified in the involvement of nurses or nursing students in the instrument development process and the content validity assessment. Six instruments appear promising based on the COSMIN criteria, but further studies are needed to confirm their validity and reliability. Conclusions: The evidence regarding instruments to assess nurses' self-reported clinical decision-making is still minimal. Although no instruments could be recommended based on the COSMIN criteria, the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale had the most robust supporting evidence, followed by the adapted version of the Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Scale. Future efforts should be made to systematically assess content validity through the involvement of the target population and by ensuring that the results of other measurement properties, such as reliability, measurement error, or hypothesis testing, are rigorously assessed and reported. Tweetable abstract: Despite limited evidence, this COSMIN review identified six promising instruments to assess nurses' clinical #decision-making, especially the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale and an adaptation of the Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Scale. #nursingresearch #nursingeducation.