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

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. 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. A mixed-model approach was used to develop and to validate the instrument. Ten dedicated educational units in a university hospital. A well-mixed group of 52 nursing students, nurse coaches and nurse educators. 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). 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. 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 too

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? 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

Serological testing for Lyme Borreliosis in general practice: A qualitative study among Dutch general practitioners.

Background: Concerns are raised about missed, delayed and inappropriate diagnosis of Lyme Borreliosis. Quantitative descriptive studies have demonstrated non-adherence to the guidelines for testing for Lyme Borreliosis.Objectives: To gain insight into the diagnostic practices that general practitioners apply for Lyme Borreliosis, their motives for ordering tests and how they act upon test results.Methods: A qualitative study among 16 general practitioners using semi-structured interviews and thematic content analysis.Results: Five themes were distinguished: (1) recognising localised Lyme Borreliosis and symptoms of disseminated disease, (2) use of the guideline, (3) serological testing in patients with clinically suspect Lyme Borreliosis, (4) serological testing without clinical suspicion of Lyme Borreliosis, and (5) dealing with the limited accuracy of the serological tests. Whereas the national guideline recommends using serological tests for diagnosing, general practitioners also use them for ruling out disseminated Lyme Borreliosis. Reasons for non-adherence to the guideline for testing were to reassure patients with non-specific symptoms or without symptoms who feared to have Lyme disease, confirmation of localised Lyme Borreliosis and routine work-up in patients with continuing unexplained symptoms. Some general practitioners referred all patients who tested positive to medical specialists, where others struggled with the explanation of the results.Conclusion: Both diagnosis and ruling out of disseminated Lyme Borreliosis can be difficult for general practitioners. General practitioners use serological tests to reassure patients and rule out Lyme Borreliosis, thereby deviating from the national guideline. Interpretation of test results in these cases can be difficult