METHODS: A systematic review was carried out using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The included sites and databases are Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE) from 1994 to 2019. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated using a standard quality rating tool (SQRT). The quality of the criteria for inclusion and exclusion was independently reviewed by three researchers.
RESULTS: This study evaluated 5266 records in the identification stage. In the included stage, only four studies were included in this review. In the standard quality assessment, none of the included studies were evaluated as being a strong study, none used an experimental design at three points in time (pre, post and follow-up), and all showed a moderate to high risk of bias. There is a lack of knowledge and skills related to trauma triage among emergency nurses in the included studies.
CONCLUSION: A lack of knowledge and skills concerning trauma triage among emergency nurses could potentially have an adverse effect on the outcomes of the patients in trauma cases.
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the HL communication practices among physicians, pharmacists, and nurses serving at public hospitals in Penang, Malaysia.
METHODS: A pretested, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from study participants of 6 public hospitals using stratified sampling. Descriptive and inferential statistics used to analyze the data with level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Of 600 distributed questionnaires, 526 (87.6%) were adequately filled and returned. Almost 19.0% (n = 98) of the respondents admitted that they did not frequently use simple language and avoid medical jargon during communication with patients. Only about half of the respondents reported frequently using other HL communication practices that include handing out education material to patients (52.2%, n = 275), asking the patient to repeat information (58.9%, n = 310), and asking patients' caregivers to be present during explanation (57.4%, n = 302). Comparatively, drawing pictures to ease patients' understanding (40.1%, n = 211) was the less-frequently practiced HL communication techniques. Health practitioners in the age group >41 years ( P = 0.046), serving 10 years and more ( P = 0.03) and those who have heard the term or concept of HL ( P = 0.004) have statistically significantly higher mean score of HL communication practices than other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The gap in the HL communication practices among physicians, pharmacists, and nurses warrants educational intervention, and standardized HL communication techniques guidelines are needed in the near future.
BACKGROUND: Critical thinking is currently considered as an essential component of nurses' professional judgement and clinical decision-making. If confirmed, nursing curricula may be revised emphasising on critical thinking with the expectation to improve clinical decision-making and thus better health care.
DESIGN: Integrated literature review.
METHODS: The integrative review was carried out after a comprehensive literature search using electronic databases Ovid, EBESCO MEDLINE, EBESCO CINAHL, PROQuest and Internet search engine Google Scholar. Two hundred and 22 articles from January 1980 to end of 2015 were retrieved. All studies evaluating the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, published in English language with nurses or nursing students as the study population, were included. No qualitative studies were found investigating the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making, while 10 quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria and were further evaluated using the Quality Assessment and Validity Tool. As a result, one study was excluded due to a low-quality score, with the remaining nine accepted for this review.
RESULTS: Four of nine studies established a positive relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making. Another five studies did not demonstrate a significant correlation. The lack of refinement in studies' design and instrumentation were arguably the main reasons for the inconsistent results.
CONCLUSIONS: Research studies yielded contradictory results as regard to the relationship between critical thinking and clinical decision-making; therefore, the evidence is not convincing. Future quantitative studies should have representative sample size, use critical thinking measurement tools related to the healthcare sector and evaluate the predisposition of test takers towards their willingness and ability to think. There is also a need for qualitative studies to provide a fresh approach in exploring the relationship between these variables uncovering currently unknown contributing factors.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review confirmed that evidence to support the existence of relationships between critical thinking and clinical decision-making is still unsubstantiated. Therefore, it serves as a call for nurse leaders and nursing academics to produce quality studies in order to firmly support or reject the hypothesis that there is a statistically significant correlation between critical thinking and clinical decision-making.