UNASSIGNED: This scoping review aims to describe how Bobath concept is conceptualized, operationalized, and studied in adult neurorehabilitation.
UNASSIGNED: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines were adopted. Non-scientific and research articles were searched in electronic databases PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), with the keywords \"Bobath\" or \"Neurodevelopmental Treatment\", published in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, between 2013 and 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 78 publications identified, 31 articles addressed the conceptual underpinnings of Bobath concept (seven theoretical papers, seven Delphi/surveys/mixed methods studies, four qualitative studies, one scoping review, 10 letters to the editor, and two editorials), comprising five themes: (a) theoretical principles; (b) clinical principles; (c) clinical reasoning; (d) conceptualizing movement; and, current (e) evidence debate. The revised definition and the Model of Bobath Clinical Practice provide a clarification of the unique aspects of Bobath concept. A new clinical skill was identified beyond facilitation - visuospatial kinesthetic perception - as well as how Bobath experts conceptualize movement, which are all integral to clinical reasoning.
UNASSIGNED: This review provides an updated Bobath clinical framework that gathers the theoretical foundations and clinical practice principles that require careful consideration in the design of future intervention studies.Implications for rehabilitationThis scoping review consolidates the clinical and theoretical principles of contemporary Bobath practice, providing a clear framework for clinicians.The Model of Bobath Clinical Practice (MBCP) framework enables detailed documentation of movement analysis and movement diagnosis, guiding clinical reasoning and interventions.This review identifies fundamental principles and practices to inform future Bobath intervention studies, ensuring their clinical relevance.A framework with specific recommendations has been developed to guide Bobath intervention studies, enhancing the integration of clinical practice, education, and research.

UNASSIGNED: The development of critical thinking (CT) has been a universal goal in higher education. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of currently used pedagogical practices to foster CT/ clinical reasoning (CR)/ clinical judgment (CJ) skills and/or dispositions in undergraduate medical students.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched from January 2010 to April 2021 with a predefined Boolean expression.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 3221 articles originally identified, 33 articles were included by using PICOS methodology. From these, 21 (64%) reported CR pedagogical practices and 12 (36%) CT pedagogical practices.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, pedagogical practices such as cognitive/visual representation, simulation, literature exposure, test-enhancing and team-based learning, clinical case discussion, error-based learning, game-based learning seem to enhance CT/CR skills and/or dispositions. Further research is required to identify the optimal timing, duration and modality of pedagogical interventions for effectively foster CT/CR in medical education.

OBJECTIVE: To outline and examine what evidence exists related to nurses\' and midwives\' experiences of participating in clinical supervision.
BACKGROUND: The practice of clinical supervision is increasingly prevalent in nursing and midwifery, yet disparity remains in relation to professionals\' understanding and experience of this clinical support and how it is implemented in practice. This scoping review will identify the available evidence and gaps in knowledge that exist in relation to nurses\' and midwives\' experience of this practice and examine how the various forms are defined in the literature.
METHODS: Comprehensive searches of CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library will be carried out. Grey literature will also be searched and all results will be screened independently by two reviewers using identified inclusion and exclusion criteria. All empirical data that identify and report nurses\' and midwives\' experiences of clinical supervision will be included in the review. Studies that include other health and social care professionals will be excluded where the nursing and midwifery cohort is not reported independently. Data from all relevant studies will be extracted using a validated adapted data extraction form. Our review will be guided by the Joanne Briggs Institute Methodology and findings will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews statement.
BACKGROUND: This review does not require ethical approval. Our dissemination strategy includes peer-reviewed publication, presentation and conferences and sharing through stakeholder networks.

UNASSIGNED: Nurses\' clinical decision-making, i.e., the data collection, analysis, and evaluation process through which they reach clinical judgements and makes clinical decisions, is at the core of nursing practice and essential to provide safe and quality care. Instruments to assess nurses\' perceptions of their clinical decision-making abilities or skills have been developed for research and education. Thus, it is essential to determine the most valid and reliable instruments available to reflect nurses\' self-reported clinical decision-making accurately.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the measurement properties of self-reported clinical decision-making instruments in nursing.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) was conducted (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022364549). Five bibliographical databases were searched in July 2022 using descriptors and keywords related to nurses, clinical decision-making, and studies on measurement properties. Two independent reviewers conducted reference selection and data extraction. The evaluation of the instruments\' measurement properties involved assessing the quality of the studies, the quality of each measurement property (i.e., validity, reliability, responsiveness), and the quality of evidence based on the COSMIN.
UNASSIGNED: Nine instruments evaluated in eleven studies with registered nurses or nursing students from various clinical contexts were identified. Five of the nine instruments were originals; four were translations or adaptations. Most focused on analytical and intuitive decision-making, although some were based on clinical judgment and clinical reasoning theories. Structural validity and internal consistency were the most frequently reported measurement properties; other properties, such as measurement error, criterion validity, and responsiveness, were not assessed for any instruments. A gap was also identified in the involvement of nurses or nursing students in the instrument development process and the content validity assessment. Six instruments appear promising based on the COSMIN criteria, but further studies are needed to confirm their validity and reliability.
UNASSIGNED: The evidence regarding instruments to assess nurses\' self-reported clinical decision-making is still minimal. Although no instruments could be recommended based on the COSMIN criteria, the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale had the most robust supporting evidence, followed by the adapted version of the Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Scale. Future efforts should be made to systematically assess content validity through the involvement of the target population and by ensuring that the results of other measurement properties, such as reliability, measurement error, or hypothesis testing, are rigorously assessed and reported.
UNASSIGNED: Despite limited evidence, this COSMIN review identified six promising instruments to assess nurses\' clinical #decision-making, especially the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale and an adaptation of the Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Scale. #nursingresearch #nursingeducation.

Verbal probability expressions such as \'likely\' and \'possible\' are commonly used to communicate uncertainty in diagnosis, treatment effectiveness as well as the risk of adverse events. Probability terms that are interpreted consistently can be used to standardize risk communication. A systematic review was conducted. Research studies that evaluated numeric meanings of probability terms were reviewed. Terms with consistent numeric interpretation across studies were selected and were used to construct a Visual Risk Scale. Five probability terms showed reliable interpretation by laypersons and healthcare professionals in empirical studies. \'Very Likely\' was interpreted as 90% chance (range 80 to 95%); \'Likely/Probable,\' 70% (60 to 80%); \'Possible,\' 40% (30 to 60%); \'Unlikely,\' 20% (10 to 30%); and \'Very Unlikely\' with 10% chance (5% to 15%). The corresponding frequency terms were: Very Frequently, Frequently, Often, Infrequently, and Rarely, respectively. Probability terms should be presented with their corresponding numeric ranges during discussions with patients. Numeric values should be presented as X-in-100 natural frequency statements, even for low values; and not as percentages, X-in-1000, X-in-Y, odds, fractions, 1-in-X, or as number needed to treat (NNT). A Visual Risk Scale was developed for use in clinical shared decision making.

OBJECTIVE: Ascertain the impact of mandated use of early warning systems (EWSs) on the development of registered nurses\' higher-order thinking.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist (Page et al., 2021).
METHODS: CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PyscInfo.
METHODS: Eligible articles were quality appraised using the MMAT tool. Data extraction was conducted independently by four reviewers. Three investigators thematically analysed the data.
RESULTS: Our review found that EWSs can support or suppress the development of nurses\' higher-order thinking. EWS supports the development of higher-order thinking in two ways; by confirming nurses\' subjective clinical assessment of patients and/or by providing a rationale for the escalation of care. Of note, more experienced nurses expressed their view that junior nurses are inhibited from developing effective higher-order thinking due to reliance on the tool.
CONCLUSIONS: EWSs facilitate early identification of clinical deterioration in hospitalised patients. The impact of EWSs on the development of nurses\' higher-order thinking is under-explored. We found that EWSs can support and suppress nurses\' higher-order thinking. EWS as a supportive factor reinforces the development of nurses\' heuristics, the mental shortcuts experienced clinicians call on when interpreting their subjective clinical assessment of patients. Conversely, EWS as a suppressive factor inhibits the development of nurses\' higher-order thinking and heuristics, restricting the development of muscle memory regarding similar presentations they may encounter in the future. Clinicians\' ability to refine and expand on their catalogue of heuristics is important as it endorses the future provision of safe and effective care for patients who present with similar physiological signs and symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: This research impacts health services and education providers as EWS and nurses\' development of higher-order thinking skills are essential aspects of delivering safe, quality care.
UNASSIGNED: This is a systematic review, and therefore, comprises no contribution from patients or the public.

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.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning is crucial in medical practice, yet its teaching faces challenges due to varied clinical experiences, limited time, and absence from competency frameworks. Despite efforts, effective teaching methodologies remain elusive. Strategies like the One Minute Preceptor (OMP) and SNAPPS are proposed as solutions, particularly in workplace settings. SNAPPS, introduced in 2003, offers a structured approach but lacks comprehensive evidence of its effectiveness. Methodological shortcomings hinder discerning its specific effects. Therefore, a systematic review is proposed to evaluate SNAPPS\' impact on clinical reasoning teaching.
BACKGROUND: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNAPPS against other methods. Data selection and extraction were performed in duplicate. Bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated using Cochrane RoB-2 and GRADE approach.
CONCLUSIONS: We identified five RCTs performed on medical students and residents. Two compared SNAPPS with an active control such as One Minute Preceptor or training with feedback. None reported the effects of SNAPPS in workplace settings (Kirkpatrick Level 3) or patients (Kirkpatrick Level 4). Low to moderate certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS increases the total presentation length by increasing discussion length. Low to moderate certainty of evidence may increase the number of differential diagnoses and the expression of uncertainties. Low certainty of evidence suggests that SNAPPS may increase the odds of trainees initiating a management plan and seeking clarification.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this systematic review suggests that SNAPPS has some advantages in terms of clinical reasoning, self-directed learning outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, it appears more beneficial when used by residents than medical students. However, future research should explore outcomes outside SNAPPS-related outcomes, such as workplace or patient-related outcomes.

UNASSIGNED: Given the complexity of teaching clinical reasoning to (future) healthcare professionals, the utilization of serious games has become popular for supporting clinical reasoning education. This scoping review outlines games designed to support teaching clinical reasoning in health professions education, with a specific emphasis on their alignment with the 8-step clinical reasoning cycle and the reflective practice framework, fundamental for effective learning.
UNASSIGNED: A scoping review using systematic searches across seven databases (PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) was conducted. Game characteristics, technical requirements, and incorporation of clinical reasoning cycle steps were analyzed. Additional game information was obtained from the authors.
UNASSIGNED: Nineteen unique games emerged, primarily simulation and escape room genres. Most games incorporated the following clinical reasoning steps: patient consideration (step 1), cue collection (step 2), intervention (step 6), and outcome evaluation (step 7). Processing information (step 3) and understanding the patient\'s problem (step 4) were less prevalent, while goal setting (step 5) and reflection (step 8) were least integrated.
UNASSIGNED: All serious games reviewed show potential for improving clinical reasoning skills, but thoughtful alignment with learning objectives and contextual factors is vital. While this study aids health professions educators in understanding how games may support teaching of clinical reasoning, further research is needed to optimize their effective use in education. Notably, most games lack explicit incorporation of all clinical reasoning cycle steps, especially reflection, limiting its role in reflective practice. Hence, we recommend prioritizing a systematic clinical reasoning model with explicit reflective steps when using serious games for teaching clinical reasoning.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning (CR) is a holistic and recursive cognitive process. It allows nursing students to accurately perceive patients\' situations and choose the best course of action among the available alternatives. This study aimed to identify the randomised controlled trials studies in the literature that concern clinical reasoning in the context of nursing students.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) was performed to identify relevant studies published up to October 2023. The following inclusion criteria were examined: (a) clinical reasoning, clinical judgment, and critical thinking in nursing students as a primary study aim; (b) articles published for the last eleven years; (c) research conducted between January 2012 and September 2023; (d) articles published only in English and Spanish; and (e) Randomised Clinical Trials. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was utilised to appraise all included studies.
RESULTS: Fifteen papers were analysed. Based on the teaching strategies used in the articles, two groups have been identified: simulation methods and learning programs. The studies focus on comparing different teaching methodologies.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review has detected different approaches to help nursing students improve their reasoning and decision-making skills. The use of mobile apps, digital simulations, and learning games has a positive impact on the clinical reasoning abilities of nursing students and their motivation. Incorporating new technologies into problem-solving-based learning and decision-making can also enhance nursing students\' reasoning skills. Nursing schools should evaluate their current methods and consider integrating or modifying new technologies and methodologies that can help enhance students\' learning and improve their clinical reasoning and cognitive skills.