4.6 Article

Do knowledge, knowledge sources and reasoning skills affect the accuracy of nursing diagnoses? a randomised study

期刊

BMC NURSING
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6955-11-11

关键词

Clinical practice; Critical reasoning; Knowledge; Nursing diagnoses; RCT

类别

资金

  1. Brink&Research and Development Association, Utrech, The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This paper reports a study about the effect of knowledge sources, such as handbooks, an assessment format and a predefined record structure for diagnostic documentation, as well as the influence of knowledge, disposition toward critical thinking and reasoning skills, on the accuracy of nursing diagnoses. Knowledge sources can support nurses in deriving diagnoses. A nurse's disposition toward critical thinking and reasoning skills is also thought to influence the accuracy of his or her nursing diagnoses. Method: A randomised factorial design was used in 2008-2009 to determine the effect of knowledge sources. We used the following instruments to assess the influence of ready knowledge, disposition, and reasoning skills on the accuracy of diagnoses: (1) a knowledge inventory, (2) the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, and (3) the Health Science Reasoning Test. Nurses (n = 249) were randomly assigned to one of four factorial groups, and were instructed to derive diagnoses based on an assessment interview with a simulated patient/actor. Results: The use of a predefined record structure resulted in a significantly higher accuracy of nursing diagnoses. A regression analysis reveals that almost half of the variance in the accuracy of diagnoses is explained by the use of a predefined record structure, a nurse's age and the reasoning skills of 'deduction' and' analysis'. Conclusions: Improving nurses' dispositions toward critical thinking and reasoning skills, and the use of a predefined record structure, improves accuracy of nursing diagnoses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据