麻醉后护理临床推理的不确定性:复杂医疗环境中不确定性模型的综合回顾

Lara Daniela Matos Cunha, Marcia Pestana-Santos, Lurdes Lomba, Margarida Reis Santos
{"title":"麻醉后护理临床推理的不确定性:复杂医疗环境中不确定性模型的综合回顾","authors":"Lara Daniela Matos Cunha, Marcia Pestana-Santos, Lurdes Lomba, Margarida Reis Santos","doi":"10.26550/2209-1092.1182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Problem identification: Post-anaesthesia nursing plays an important role in the early detection and treatment of clinical deterioration after surgery and/or anaesthesia. Concomitantly, the effectiveness of post-operative care is highly dependent on the accurate analysis, synthesis of patient data and quality of diagnostic decisions through clinical reasoning. Given the dynamic processes required to come to a diagnosis, uncertainty is common in clinical reasoning and expected during practice. Nevertheless, uncertainty may permeate the foundations of clinical reasoning, which can jeopardise diagnostic accuracy and consequently the quality and safety of health care. Literature search: The objectives of this review are to identify available evidence related to uncertainty in post-anaesthesia nursing clinical reasoning and to analyse the results from the perspective of the Model of Uncertainty in Complex Healthcare Settings (MUCH-S). A comprehensive search strategy using CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library (EBSCO), Medline (PubMed), ProQuest and Google Scholar databases was used to find published and unpublished relevant studies. Studies published in English and Portuguese were included. There was no temporal restriction, nor geographical or cultural limitation for the studies included. Data evaluation synthesis: All papers were reviewed by the authors to extract key information about purpose, sample and setting, research design and method, key findings and limitations. The literature search identified a total of 248 studies, 22 of which were retrieved for full reading. A total of four articles were included in this review. Implications for practice: Three main themes were identified: nurses’ intuition to reason, feelings of uncertainty related to lack of nursing knowledge and clinical (in)experience to deal with uncertainty. These findings are encompassed within the MUCH-S taxonomy: personal, scientific and practical. This review offers post-anaesthesia nurses’ greater levels of understanding of this phenomenon and may support more informed and reflexive clinical reasoning.","PeriodicalId":37332,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perioperative Nursing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncertainty in post-anaesthesia nursing clinical reasoning: An integrative review in the light of the model of uncertainty in complex health care settings\",\"authors\":\"Lara Daniela Matos Cunha, Marcia Pestana-Santos, Lurdes Lomba, Margarida Reis Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.26550/2209-1092.1182\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Problem identification: Post-anaesthesia nursing plays an important role in the early detection and treatment of clinical deterioration after surgery and/or anaesthesia. Concomitantly, the effectiveness of post-operative care is highly dependent on the accurate analysis, synthesis of patient data and quality of diagnostic decisions through clinical reasoning. Given the dynamic processes required to come to a diagnosis, uncertainty is common in clinical reasoning and expected during practice. Nevertheless, uncertainty may permeate the foundations of clinical reasoning, which can jeopardise diagnostic accuracy and consequently the quality and safety of health care. Literature search: The objectives of this review are to identify available evidence related to uncertainty in post-anaesthesia nursing clinical reasoning and to analyse the results from the perspective of the Model of Uncertainty in Complex Healthcare Settings (MUCH-S). A comprehensive search strategy using CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library (EBSCO), Medline (PubMed), ProQuest and Google Scholar databases was used to find published and unpublished relevant studies. Studies published in English and Portuguese were included. There was no temporal restriction, nor geographical or cultural limitation for the studies included. Data evaluation synthesis: All papers were reviewed by the authors to extract key information about purpose, sample and setting, research design and method, key findings and limitations. The literature search identified a total of 248 studies, 22 of which were retrieved for full reading. A total of four articles were included in this review. Implications for practice: Three main themes were identified: nurses’ intuition to reason, feelings of uncertainty related to lack of nursing knowledge and clinical (in)experience to deal with uncertainty. These findings are encompassed within the MUCH-S taxonomy: personal, scientific and practical. This review offers post-anaesthesia nurses’ greater levels of understanding of this phenomenon and may support more informed and reflexive clinical reasoning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Perioperative Nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Perioperative Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26550/2209-1092.1182\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perioperative Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26550/2209-1092.1182","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

问题识别:麻醉后护理在早期发现和治疗手术和/或麻醉后的临床恶化方面发挥着重要作用。同时,术后护理的有效性在很大程度上取决于通过临床推理对患者数据的准确分析、综合和诊断决策的质量。考虑到诊断所需的动态过程,不确定性在临床推理中很常见,在实践中也很常见。然而,不确定性可能渗透到临床推理的基础上,这可能危及诊断的准确性,从而危及医疗保健的质量和安全。文献检索:本综述的目的是确定麻醉后护理临床推理中与不确定性相关的可用证据,并从复杂医疗环境中的不确定性模型(MUCH-S)的角度分析结果。使用CINAHL(EBSCO)、Cochrane Library(EBSCO)、Medline(PubMed)、ProQuest和Google Scholar数据库的综合搜索策略来查找已发表和未发表的相关研究。包括以英语和葡萄牙语发表的研究报告。纳入的研究没有时间限制,也没有地理或文化限制。数据评估综合:作者对所有论文进行了审查,以提取有关目的、样本和背景、研究设计和方法、关键发现和局限性的关键信息。文献检索共确定了248项研究,其中22项为全文检索。本综述共收录了四篇文章。对实践的启示:确定了三个主要主题:护士对理性的直觉、与缺乏护理知识有关的不确定性感受和应对不确定性的临床经验。这些发现包含在MUCH-S分类法中:个人、科学和实用。这篇综述为麻醉后护士对这一现象的理解提供了更高的水平,并可能支持更知情和反射性的临床推理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Uncertainty in post-anaesthesia nursing clinical reasoning: An integrative review in the light of the model of uncertainty in complex health care settings
Problem identification: Post-anaesthesia nursing plays an important role in the early detection and treatment of clinical deterioration after surgery and/or anaesthesia. Concomitantly, the effectiveness of post-operative care is highly dependent on the accurate analysis, synthesis of patient data and quality of diagnostic decisions through clinical reasoning. Given the dynamic processes required to come to a diagnosis, uncertainty is common in clinical reasoning and expected during practice. Nevertheless, uncertainty may permeate the foundations of clinical reasoning, which can jeopardise diagnostic accuracy and consequently the quality and safety of health care. Literature search: The objectives of this review are to identify available evidence related to uncertainty in post-anaesthesia nursing clinical reasoning and to analyse the results from the perspective of the Model of Uncertainty in Complex Healthcare Settings (MUCH-S). A comprehensive search strategy using CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library (EBSCO), Medline (PubMed), ProQuest and Google Scholar databases was used to find published and unpublished relevant studies. Studies published in English and Portuguese were included. There was no temporal restriction, nor geographical or cultural limitation for the studies included. Data evaluation synthesis: All papers were reviewed by the authors to extract key information about purpose, sample and setting, research design and method, key findings and limitations. The literature search identified a total of 248 studies, 22 of which were retrieved for full reading. A total of four articles were included in this review. Implications for practice: Three main themes were identified: nurses’ intuition to reason, feelings of uncertainty related to lack of nursing knowledge and clinical (in)experience to deal with uncertainty. These findings are encompassed within the MUCH-S taxonomy: personal, scientific and practical. This review offers post-anaesthesia nurses’ greater levels of understanding of this phenomenon and may support more informed and reflexive clinical reasoning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Perioperative Nursing
Journal of Perioperative Nursing Nursing-Medical and Surgical Nursing
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of fascia iliaca compartment block in adult fractured neck of femur patients: An integrative review Triggering change in perioperative pressure injury risk assessment: A project report Product stewardship in health care: The importance of minimising the environmental and health impacts of plastic products Advancing perioperative nursing education and surgical skills acquisition: A comprehensive approach Effectiveness of intra-operative gentamicin irrigation in reducing post-operative surgical site infections: A systematic review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1