Deepening the quality of clinical reasoning and decision-making in rural hospital nursing practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Rural acute care nursing requires an extensive breadth and depth of knowledge as well as the ability to quickly reason through problems in order to make sound clinical decisions. This reasoning often occurs within an environment that has minimal medical or ancillary support. Registered nurses (RN) new to rural nursing, and employers, have raised concerns about patient safety while new nurses make the transition into rural practice. In addition, feeling unprepared for the rigors of rural hospital nursing practice is a central issue influencing RN recruitment and retention. Understanding how rural RNs reason is a key element for identifying professional development needs and may support recruitment and retention of skilled rural nurses. The purpose of this study was to explore how rural RNs reason through clinical problems as well as to assess the quality of such reasoning. METHODS: This study used a non-traditional approach for data collection. Fifteen rural acute care nurses with varying years of experience working in southern Alberta, Canada, were observed while they provided care to patients of varying acuity within a simulated rural setting. Following the simulation, semi-structured interviews were conducted using a substantive approach to critical thinking. RESULTS: Findings revealed that the ability to engage in deep clinical reasoning varied considerably among participants despite being given the same information under the same circumstances. Furthermore, the number of years of experience did not seem to be directly linked to the ability to engage in sound clinical reasoning. Novice nurses, however, did rely heavily on others in their decision making in order to ensure they were making the right decision. Hence, their relationships with other staff members influenced their ability to engage in clinical reasoning and decision making. In situations where the patient's condition was deteriorating quickly, regardless of years of experience, all of the participants depended on their colleagues when making decisions and reasoning throughout the simulation. CONCLUSIONS: Deep clinical reasoning and decision making is a function of reflection and self-correction that requires a critical self-awareness and is more about how nurses think than what they think. The degree of sophistication in reasoning of experts and novices is at times equivalent in that the reasoning of experts and novices can be somewhat limited and focused primarily on human physicality and less on conceptual knowledge. To become proficient in clinical reasoning, practice is necessary. The study supports the accumulating evidence that using clinical simulation and reflective interviewing that emphasize how clinical decisions are made enhances reasoning skills and confidence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,065 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».