■医疗保健专业人员之间的协作临床推理(CCR)对于最大程度地提高临床结果和患者安全性至关重要。本范围审查探讨了CCR,以解决在理解其定义方面的差距,结构,和影响。
■进行了范围审查,以检查医疗保健中与CCR相关的研究。Medline,PsychInfo,SciVerseScopus,搜索了WebofScience。纳入标准包括2011年至2020年期间发表的全文文章。搜索词包括合作,协作,共享,团队,集体,推理,解决问题,决策,结合临床或医学或医学,但排除了共同决策。
■评论中总共确定了24篇文章。审查显示人们对CCR的兴趣与日俱增,有14篇文章强调了决策过程,五个使用多学科团队度量来观察决策(MDTS-MODe),三探索CCR理论,和两个专注于解决问题的过程。Communication,信任,团队动态成为医疗保健决策中的关键影响者。值得注意的是,只有两篇文章提供了具体的CCR定义。
■虽然决策过程主导CCR研究,在定义和构建CCR方面存在明显差距。明确的理论框架,例如Blondon等人提出的。和Kiesewetter等人。,对于在协作团队中推进研究和理解CCR动态至关重要。本范围审查提供了CCR研究的全面概述,揭示了该领域日益增长的兴趣和多样性。审查强调需要明确的理论框架,引用Blondon等人的话。和Kiesewetter等人。跨专业合作和临床推理的更广泛领域需要探索。
UNASSIGNED: Collaborative clinical reasoning (CCR) among healthcare professionals is crucial for maximizing clinical outcomes and patient safety. This scoping
review explores CCR to address the gap in understanding its definition, structure, and implications.
UNASSIGNED: A scoping
review was undertaken to examine CCR related studies in healthcare. Medline, PsychInfo, SciVerse Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criteria included full-text articles published between 2011 to 2020. Search terms included cooperative, collaborative, shared, team, collective, reasoning, problem solving, decision making, combined with clinical or medicine or medical, but excluded shared decision making.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 24 articles were identified in the
review. The
review reveals a growing interest in CCR, with 14 articles emphasizing the decision-making process, five using Multidisciplinary Team-Metric for the Observation of Decision Making (MDTs-MODe), three exploring CCR theory, and two focusing on the problem-solving process. Communication, trust, and team dynamics emerge as key influencers in healthcare decision-making. Notably, only two articles provide specific CCR definitions.
UNASSIGNED: While decision-making processes dominate CCR studies, a notable gap exists in defining and structuring CCR. Explicit theoretical frameworks, such as those proposed by Blondon et al. and Kiesewetter et al., are crucial for advancing research and understanding CCR dynamics within collaborative teams. This scoping
review provides a comprehensive overview of CCR research, revealing a growing interest and diversity in the field. The review emphasizes the need for explicit theoretical frameworks, citing Blondon et al. and Kiesewetter et al. The broader landscape of interprofessional collaboration and clinical reasoning requires exploration.