Literature DB >> 25522802

Health professionals' decision-making in wound management: a grounded theory.

Brigid M Gillespie1, Wendy Chaboyer1, Winsome St John2, Nicola Morley3, Paul Nieuwenhoven4.   

Abstract

AIM: To develop a conceptual understanding of the decision-making processes used by healthcare professionals in wound care practice.
BACKGROUND: With the global move towards using an evidence-base in standardizing wound care practices and the need to reduce hospital wound care costs, it is important to understand health professionals' decision-making in this important yet under-researched area.
DESIGN: A grounded theory approach was used to explore clinical decision-making of healthcare professionals in wound care practice.
METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 20 multi-disciplinary participants from nursing, surgery, infection control and wound care who worked at a metropolitan hospital in Australia. Data were collected during 2012-2013. Constant comparative analysis underpinned by Strauss and Corbin's framework was used to identify clinical decision-making processes.
FINDINGS: The core category was 'balancing practice-based knowledge with evidence-based knowledge'. Participants' clinical practice and actions embedded the following processes: 'utilizing the best available information', 'using a consistent approach in wound assessment' and 'using a multidisciplinary approach'. The substantive theory explains how practice and evidence knowledge was balanced and the variation in use of intuitive practice-based knowledge versus evidence-based knowledge. Participants considered patients' needs and preferences, costs, outcomes, technologies, others' expertise and established practices. Participants' decision-making tended to be more heavily weighted towards intuitive practice-based processes.
CONCLUSION: These findings offer a better understanding of the processes used by health professionals' in their decision-making in wound care. Such an understanding may inform the development of evidence-based interventions that lead to better patient outcomes.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acute care; clinical judgement; evidence-based practice; information access; multidisciplinary; nursing; patient advocate; pharmaceutical marketing; qualitative; ward culture

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25522802     DOI: 10.1111/jan.12598

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adv Nurs        ISSN: 0309-2402            Impact factor:   3.187


  6 in total

1.  Wound management: Investigating the interprofessional decision-making process.

Authors:  Corey Heerschap; Andrew Nicholas; Meredith Whitehead
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-11-04       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties.

Authors:  Trish A Gray; Jo C Dumville; Janice Christie; Nicky A Cullum
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Quality appraisal of clinical guidelines for surgical site infection prevention: A systematic review.

Authors:  Brigid M Gillespie; Claudia Bull; Rachel Walker; Frances Lin; Shelley Roberts; Wendy Chaboyer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Reshaping wound care: Evaluation of an artificial intelligence app to improve wound assessment and management amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Michelle Barakat-Johnson; Aaron Jones; Mitch Burger; Thomas Leong; Astrid Frotjold; Sue Randall; Bora Kim; Judith Fethney; Fiona Coyer
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 3.099

5.  Developing an aftercare decision aid; assessing health professionals' and patients' preferences.

Authors:  Linda Klaassen; Carmen Dirksen; Liesbeth Boersma; Ciska Hoving
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 2.520

6.  Wound care practices across two acute care settings: A comparative study.

Authors:  Brigid M Gillespie; Rachel Walker; Frances Lin; Shelley Roberts; Anne Eskes; Jodie Perry; Sean Birgan; Paul Nieuwenhoven; Elizabeth Garrahy; Rosalind Probert; Wendy Chaboyer
Journal:  J Clin Nurs       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 3.036

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.