Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
A new integrated model of clinical reasoning: Development, description and preliminary assessment in patients with stroke
21
Zitationen
2
Autoren
2006
Jahr
Abstract
PURPOSE: The main objective was the development and collection of preliminary data on the application of a new integrated clinical reasoning model (Anadysis) with patients suffering a stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA). METHOD: Twelve healthcare professionals working in the neurological and the Accident and Emergency (A&E) units of an acute general hospital participated and experimental control was achieved by employing a pre-test post-test control group experimental design. Members of the control group used the current reasoning model of their discipline whereas the new integrated model was used by the members of the experimental group irrespective of their professions. Outcomes were measured by scoring on a protocol derived from the UK National Clinical Guidelines for Stroke divided into the three main clinical reasoning processes. RESULTS: Collectively, data from 186 protocols based on the medical records of 49 patients showed that median percentages of correct responses in clinical reasoning were substantially higher for the experimental group by using the new integrated model. CONCLUSIONS: This study will inform the healthcare professionals about a new effective integrated clinical reasoning model which incorporates the complex processes of diagnosis, planning and treatment as a whole. This study may also become an important consideration in the further development of clinical decision support systems within the scientific area of health informatics.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note
1997 · 14.663 Zit.
Making sense of Cronbach's alpha
2011 · 13.991 Zit.
QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
2011 · 13.741 Zit.
A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions
1981 · 11.525 Zit.
Clarifying Confusion: The Confusion Assessment Method
1990 · 5.247 Zit.