Reasoning in a Specialty Area

Clinical reasoning is a process used by nurses and other clinical professionals to collect data, process information, understand a patient’s situation or problem, develop treatments and interventions, and develop outcomes. This concept is often used synonymously with decision making or problem-solving. Even though they are related concepts, there is a difference in the process of clinical reasoning and the conventional decision-making process. The main difference between clinical reasoning and these other concepts is that the former focuses on the strategies that clinicians use to make their judgment and solve a problem (Simmons, 2010). Clinical reasoning is often applied in practice to enhance patient outcomes.

How Reasoning Strategies are Applied in my Specialty Area.

            In developing interventions for improving the experiences and outcomes for intensive care unit (ICU) patients, various clinical reasoning strategies are often applied. One of the strategies most commonly used in this specialty area is the hypothetic-deductive model of reasoning. This reasoning strategy begins with the identification of initial cues about the patient or patient group, and then relevant information is developed to determine the causes of the cues and develop interventions. An example of the use of this strategy is Holdsworth et al. (2015). This study begins by hypothesizing that the mobilization of ICU patients is important, but there are attitude and belief barriers that prevent nurses from mobilizing patients. The researcher’s go-ahead to conduct a study of the nurses’ attitudes and beliefs with the help of a survey study and with the results they recommend interventions to help nurses improve the way they deal with patients. Needham (2008) also uses the same inquisitive strategy to determine how the mobilization of ICU patients can help to improve their physical functioning. In this case, the researcher performs an analysis of existing evidence to conclude that patients in ICU can enhance their physical activity for quicker recovery.

Applying Reasoning Strategies to the Refinement of my EBP Project Question

My EBP question seeks to understand how the early mobilization of patients in intensive care can help them to recover quicker for early discharge to be possible. There are various reasoning strategies that I have used so far to develop the question and will be used to develop the appropriate answers to enhance patient outcomes. The basic strategy applied to refine the EBP project question is considering the patients’ situation. I made an observation that patients in intensive care take too long to be discharged, which led to the inquisitiveness of the situation to determine some of the reasons for the long hospital stays. To answer the develop question, I can apply the strategies of gathering and reviewing information from various research studies on the issue. There is a multitude of evidence on ICU patients’ hospital stay on online databases like Medline, CINAHL, and ProQuest. The information presented on these sites can help to evaluate the various strategies that are likely to be effective in improving the recovery of the ICU patients. Later, information processing, which involves an analysis, making of inferences, and prediction of outcomes, can be helpful in developing the best intervention for the ICU patients to recover quickly. After these strategies have been applied, then I can move ahead to take action for the improvement of ICU patients’ experiences and outcomes.

References

Holdsworth, C., Haines, K. J., Francis, J. J., Marshall, A., O’connor, D., & Skinner, E. H. (2015). Mobilization of ventilated patients in the intensive care unit: An elicitation study using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of critical care, 30(6), 1243-1250.

Needham, D. M. (2008). Mobilizing patients in the intensive care unit: improving neuromuscular weakness and physical function. Jama, 300(14), 1685-1690.

Simmons, B. (2010). Clinical reasoning: Concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(5), 1151-1158.