Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Problem identification: Post-anaesthesia nursing plays an important role in the early detection and treatment of clinical deterioration a ter surgery and/or anaesthesia. Concomitantly, the e ectiveness of post-operative care is highly dependent on the accurate analysis, synthesis of patient data and quality of diagnostic decisions through clinical reasoning. Given the dynamic processes required to come to a diagnosis, uncertainty is common in clinical reasoning and expected during practice. Nevertheless, uncertainty may permeate the foundations of clinical reasoning, which can jeopardise diagnostic accuracy and consequently the quality and safety of health care.Literature search: The objectives of this review are to identify available evidence related to uncertainty in post-anaesthesia nursing clinical reasoning and to analyse the results from the perspective of the Model of Uncertainty in Complex Healthcare Settings (MUCH-S). A comprehensive search strategy using CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library (EBSCO), Medline (PubMed), ProQuest and Google Scholar databases was used to find published and unpublished relevant studies. Studies published in English and Portuguese were included. There was no temporal restriction, nor geographical or cultural limitation for the studies included.Data evaluation synthesis: All papers were reviewed by the authors to extract key information about purpose, sample and setting, research design and method, key findings and limitations. The literature search identified a total of 248 studies, 22 of which were retrieved for full reading. A total of four articles were included in this review.Implications for practice: Three main themes were identified: nurses' intuition to reason, feelings of uncertainty related to lack of nursing knowledge and clinical (in)experience to deal with uncertainty. These findings are encompassed within the MUCH-S taxonomy: personal, scientific and practical. This review o ers post-anaesthesia nurses' greater levels of understanding of this phenomenon and may support more informed and reflexive clinical reasoning.
Problem identification: Post-anaesthesia nursing plays an important role in the early detection and treatment of clinical deterioration a ter surgery and/or anaesthesia. Concomitantly, the e ectiveness of post-operative care is highly dependent on the accurate analysis, synthesis of patient data and quality of diagnostic decisions through clinical reasoning. Given the dynamic processes required to come to a diagnosis, uncertainty is common in clinical reasoning and expected during practice. Nevertheless, uncertainty may permeate the foundations of clinical reasoning, which can jeopardise diagnostic accuracy and consequently the quality and safety of health care.Literature search: The objectives of this review are to identify available evidence related to uncertainty in post-anaesthesia nursing clinical reasoning and to analyse the results from the perspective of the Model of Uncertainty in Complex Healthcare Settings (MUCH-S). A comprehensive search strategy using CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library (EBSCO), Medline (PubMed), ProQuest and Google Scholar databases was used to find published and unpublished relevant studies. Studies published in English and Portuguese were included. There was no temporal restriction, nor geographical or cultural limitation for the studies included.Data evaluation synthesis: All papers were reviewed by the authors to extract key information about purpose, sample and setting, research design and method, key findings and limitations. The literature search identified a total of 248 studies, 22 of which were retrieved for full reading. A total of four articles were included in this review.Implications for practice: Three main themes were identified: nurses' intuition to reason, feelings of uncertainty related to lack of nursing knowledge and clinical (in)experience to deal with uncertainty. These findings are encompassed within the MUCH-S taxonomy: personal, scientific and practical. This review o ers post-anaesthesia nurses' greater levels of understanding of this phenomenon and may support more informed and reflexive clinical reasoning.
AimTo construct a nursing assessment framework for patients in anaesthesia recovery period.DesignA three‐round modified Delphi method was employed to capture the consensus of 22 panellists.MethodsThe initial items in the nursing assessment framework for patients in anaesthesia recovery period were developed based on the mini‐clinical evaluation exercise (mini‐CEX). A panel of 22 experts participated in this study. The panellists have more than 10 years of experience in either clinical anaesthesia, or post‐anesthesia nursing, or operating room nursing, or surgical intensive nursing. Between March and April 2023, the panellists evaluated and recommended revisions to the initial framework.ResultsThis study resulted in the development of a nursing assessment framework for patients in anaesthesia recovery period. The initial version of the framework consisted of six dimensions with 27 items. Six items were modified after the first round of consultation. After the second round, five modifications and four deletions were made based on expert opinion. The third round resulted in a convergence of expert opinion. The framework, which consists of 24 items across five dimensions, was refined. The five dimensions are as follows: History‐taking, Physical assessment, Clinical judgement, Organizational efficiency and Humanistic concern.ConclusionThe nursing assessment framework for patients in anaesthesia recovery period was reached consensus between the 22 experts’ opinions.Implications for the profession and patient careThe assessment framework constructed in this study could be used for the process evaluation of post‐anesthesia nursing. The framework may guide perianesthesia nurses in the timely and effective assessment of patients during this critical phase of care. It may be used for perianesthesia nursing education or to evaluate nurses' assessment skills.Reporting methodThe study is reported in accordance with the Guidance on Conducting and Reporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) recommendations.Patient or public contributionNo patient or public contribution.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.