BACKGROUND: Critical thinking is currently considered as an essential component of nurses' professional judgement and clinical decision-making. If confirmed, nursing curricula may be revised emphasising on critical thinking with the expectation to improve clinical decision-making and thus better health care.
DESIGN: Integrated literature review.
METHODS: The integrative review was carried out after a comprehensive literature search using electronic databases Ovid, EBESCO MEDLINE, EBESCO CINAHL, PROQuest and Internet search engine Google Scholar. Two hundred and 22 articles from January 1980 to end of 2015 were retrieved. All studies evaluating the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, published in English language with nurses or nursing students as the study population, were included. No qualitative studies were found investigating the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, while 10 quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria and were further evaluated using the Quality Assessment and Validity Tool. As a result, one study was excluded due to a low-quality score, with the remaining nine accepted for this review.
RESULTS: Four of nine studies established a positive relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making. Another five studies did not demonstrate a significant correlation. The lack of refinement in studies' design and instrumentation were arguably the main reasons for the inconsistent results.
CONCLUSIONS: Research studies yielded contradictory results as regard to the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making; therefore, the evidence is not convincing. Future quantitative studies should have representative sample size, use critical thinking measurement tools related to the healthcare sector and evaluate the predisposition of test takers towards their willingness and ability to think. There is also a need for qualitative studies to provide a fresh approach in exploring the relationship between these variables uncovering currently unknown contributing factors.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review confirmed that evidence to support the existence of relationships between critical thinking and clinical decision-making is still unsubstantiated. Therefore, it serves as a call for nurse leaders and nursing academics to produce quality studies in order to firmly support or reject the hypothesis that there is a statistically significant correlation between critical thinking and clinical decision-making.
METHODS: Anonymised data consisting of 44 independent predictor variables from 355 adults diagnosed with COVID-19, at a UK hospital, was manually extracted from electronic patient records for retrospective, case-control analysis. Primary outcomes included inpatient mortality, required ventilatory support, and duration of inpatient treatment. Pulmonary embolism sequala was the only secondary outcome. After balancing data, key variables were feature selected for each outcome using random forests. Predictive models were then learned and constructed using Bayesian networks.
RESULTS: The proposed probabilistic models were able to predict, using feature selected risk factors, the probability of the mentioned outcomes. Overall, our findings demonstrate reliable, multivariable, quantitative predictive models for four outcomes, which utilise readily available clinical information for COVID-19 adult inpatients. Further research is required to externally validate our models and demonstrate their utility as risk stratification and clinical decision-making tools.
METHOD: Two categories of participants, i.e., medical doctors (n = 11) and final year medical students (Group 1, n = 5; Group 2, n = 10) participated in four separate focus group discussions. Nielsen's 5 dimensions of usability (i.e. learnability, effectiveness, memorability, errors, and satisfaction) and Pentland's narrative network were adapted as the framework to study the usability and the implementation of the checklist in a real clinical setting respectively.
RESULTS: Both categories (medical doctors and medical students) of participants found that the TWED checklist was easy to learn and effective in promoting metacognition. For medical student participants, items "T" and "W" were believed to be the two most useful aspects of the checklist, whereas for the doctor participants, it was item "D". Regarding its implementation, item "T" was applied iteratively, items "W" and "E" were applied when the outcomes did not turn out as expected, and item "D" was applied infrequently. The one checkpoint where all four items were applied was after the initial history taking and physical examination had been performed to generate the initial clinical impression.
CONCLUSION: A metacognitive checklist aimed to check cognitive errors may be a useful tool that can be implemented in the real clinical setting.
AIM: To investigate the (dis)agreement between, and compare the determinants of, parent and clinician severity scores.
DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study of 8394 children presenting to primary care with acute (≤28 days) cough and RTI.
METHOD: Data on sociodemographic factors, parent-reported symptoms, clinician-reported findings, and severity assessments were used. Kappa (κ)-statistics were used to investigate (dis) agreement, whereas multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the factors associated with illness severity.
RESULTS: Parents reported higher illness severity (mean 5.2 [standard deviation (SD) 1.8], median 5 [interquartile range (IQR) 4-7]), than clinicians (mean 3.1 [SD 1.7], median 3 [IQR 2-4], P<0.0001). There was low positive correlation between these scores (+0.43) and poor inter-rater agreement between parents and clinicians (κ 0.049). The number of clinical signs was highly correlated with clinician scores (+0.71). Parent-reported symptoms (in the previous 24 hours) that were independently associated with higher illness severity scores, in order of importance, were: severe fever, severe cough, rapid breathing, severe reduced eating, moderate-to-severe reduced fluid intake, severe disturbed sleep, and change in cry. Three of these symptoms (severe fever, rapid breathing, and change in cry) along with inter/subcostal recession, crackles/crepitations, nasal flaring, wheeze, and drowsiness/irritability were associated with higher clinician scores.
CONCLUSION: Clinicians and parents use different factors and make different judgements about the severity of children's RTI. Improved understanding of the factors that concern parents could improve parent-clinician communication and consultation outcomes.
METHODS: Cross sectional questionnaire survey conducted among a convenience sample of physicians that likely comprise code team members in their country (Indonesia, Israel and Mexico). The questionnaire included details regarding respondent demographics and training, personal value judgments and preferences as well as professional experience regarding CPR and forgoing of resuscitation.
RESULTS: Of the 675 questionnaires distributed, 617 (91.4%) were completed and returned. Country of practice and level of knowledge about resuscitation were strongly associated with avoiding CPR performance. Mexican physicians were almost twicemore likely to forgo CPR than their Israeli and Indonesian/Malaysian counterparts [OR1.84 (95% CI 1.03, 3.26), p = 0.038]. Mexican responders also placed greater emphasison personal and patient quality of life (p
METHODS: A total of 88 final year medical students were assigned to either an educational intervention group or a control group in a non-equivalent group post-test only design. Participants in the intervention group received a tutorial on the use of a mnemonic checklist aimed to minimize cognitive errors in clinical decision-making. Two weeks later, the participants in both groups were given a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases, with 3 items per case, to assess their clinical decisions when additional data are given in the case scenarios.
RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney U-test performed on the total scores from both groups showed no statistical significance (U = 792, z = -1.408, p = 0.159). When comparisons were made for the first half and the second half of the SCT, it was found that participants in the intervention group performed significantly better than participants in the control group in the first half of the test, with median scores of 9.15 (IQR 8.00-10.28) vs. 8.18 (IQR 7.16-9.24) respectively, U = 642.5, z = -2.661, p = 0.008. No significant difference was found in the second half of the test, with the median score of 9.58 (IQR 8.90-10.56) vs. 9.81 (IQR 8.83-11.12) for the intervention group and control group respectively (U = 897.5, z = -0.524, p = 0.60).
CONCLUSION: Checklist use in differential diagnoses consideration did show some benefit. However, this benefit seems to have been traded off by the time and effort in using it. More research is needed to determine whether this benefit could be translated into clinical practice after repetitive use.
METHODS: Two groups of final-year medical students from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, were recruited to participate in this quasi-experimental study. The intervention group (n = 21) received educational intervention that introduced the TWED checklist, while the control group (n = 19) received a tutorial on basic electrocardiography. Post-intervention, both groups received a similar assessment on clinical decision-making based on five case scenarios.
RESULTS: The mean score of the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group (18.50 ± 4.45 marks vs. 12.50 ± 2.84 marks, p < 0.001). In three of the five case scenarios, students in the intervention group obtained higher scores than those in the control group.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the use of the TWED checklist to facilitate metacognition in clinical decision-making.
CASE PRESENTATION: We describe a series of pediatric patients who presented to the Pediatric Emergency Department with acute abdominal pain, in whom point-of-care ultrasound helped expedite the diagnosis by identifying varying types of calcification and associated sonological findings. For children who present to the Pediatric Emergency Department with significant abdominal pain, a rapid distinction between emergencies and non-emergencies is vital to decrease morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: In a child presenting to the Pediatric Emergency Department with abdominal pain, POCUS and the findings of calcifications can narrow or expand the differential diagnosis when integrated with history and physical exam, to a specific anatomic structure. Integrating these findings with additional sonological findings of an underlying pathology might raise sufficient concerns in the emergency physicians to warrant further investigations for the patient in the form of a formal radiological ultrasound and assist in the patient's early disposition. The use of POCUS might also help to categorize the type of calcification to one of the four main categories of intra-abdominal calcifications, namely concretions, conduit wall calcification, cyst wall calcification, and solid mass-type calcification. POCUS used thoughtfully can give a diagnosis and expand differential diagnosis, reduce cognitive bias, and reduce physician mental load. By integrating the use of POCUS with the history and clinical findings, it will be possible to expedite the management in children who present to the Pediatric Emergency Department with acute abdominal pain.