Search

Aim: Ascertain the impact of mandated use of early warning systems (EWSs) on the development of registered nurses' higher‐order thinking. Design: A systematic literature review was conducted, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist (Page et al., 2021). Data Sources: CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PyscInfo. Review 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. Conclusion: 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. Impact: 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. No Patient or Public Contribution: This is a systematic review, and therefore, comprises no contribution from patients or the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim of this concept analysis was to develop a contemporary operational definition of Clinical Judgement in nursing. Design: Concept analysis. Methods: Rodgers' evolutionary method of concept analysis. Throughout the study, the authors followed the SRQR checklist. Results: This concept analysis guided the development of an operational definition of clinical judgement, within the context of nursing, articulated as Clinical judgement is a reflective and reasoning process that draws upon all available data, is informed by an extensive knowledge base and results in the formation of a clinical conclusion. Conclusion: The purpose of this concept analysis was to propose a detailed definition of clinical judgement in nursing, that reflected its theoretical base within today's contemporary healthcare system. Using Rodgers' evolutionary method of concept analysis, surrogate terms, attributes, antecedents and consequences were identified, and a contemporary definition was developed. No patient or public contribution was required to design or undertake this research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Design Method Results Conclusion Impact Patient or Public Contribution To evaluate registered nurses' perceptions of whether the mandated use of the early warning system vital signs tool impacts the development of nurses' higher‐order thinking skills.A concurrent mixed methods study design.Using an online survey, registered nurses' perceptions were elucidated on whether early warning system algorithmic tools affected the development of their higher‐order thinking. Likert‐type matrix questions with additional qualitative fields were used to obtain information on nurse's perceptions of the tool's usefulness, clinical confidence in using the tool, compliance with escalation protocols, work environment and perceived compliance barriers.Most of the 305 (91%) participants included in the analysis had more than 5 years of nursing experience. Most nurses supported the early warning tool and were happy to comply with escalation protocols if the early warning score concurred with their assessment of the patient (63.6%). When the score and the nurse's higher‐order thinking did not align, some had the confidence to override the escalation protocol (40.0%), while others omitted (69.4%) or inaccurately documented vital signs (63.3%) to achieve the desired score. Very few nurses (3.6%) believe using early warning tools did not impede the development of higher‐order thinking.Although experienced nurses appreciate the support of early warning tools, most value patient safety above the tools and rely on their higher‐order thinking. The sustained development and use of nurses' higher‐order thinking should be encouraged, possibly by adding a critical thinking criterion to existing algorithmic tools.The study has implications for all nurses who utilize algorithmic tools, such as early warning systems, in their practice. Relying heavily on algorithmic tools risks impeding the development of higher‐order thinking. Most experienced nurses prioritize their higher‐order thinking in decision‐making but believe early warning tools can impede higher‐order thinking.Registered nurses participated as survey respondents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]