Collaborative clinical reasoning: a scoping review

Ching-Yi Lee; Hung-Yi Lai; Ching-Hsin Lee; Mi-Mi Chen; Sze-Yuen Yau

doi:10.7717/peerj.17042

Collaborative clinical reasoning: a scoping review

PeerJ. 2024 Mar 6:12:e17042. doi: 10.7717/peerj.17042. eCollection 2024.

Authors

Ching-Yi Lee^#¹, Hung-Yi Lai^#¹, Ching-Hsin Lee², Mi-Mi Chen¹, Sze-Yuen Yau³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Neurosurgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
² Department of Radiation Oncology, Proton and Radiation Therapy Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
³ (CG-MERC) Chang Gung Medical Education Research Centre, Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

^# Contributed equally.

Abstract

Background: Collaborative clinical reasoning (CCR) among healthcare professionals is crucial for maximizing clinical outcomes and patient safety. This scoping review explores CCR to address the gap in understanding its definition, structure, and implications.

Methods: A scoping review was undertaken to examine CCR related studies in healthcare. Medline, PsychInfo, SciVerse Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criteria included full-text articles published between 2011 to 2020. Search terms included cooperative, collaborative, shared, team, collective, reasoning, problem solving, decision making, combined with clinical or medicine or medical, but excluded shared decision making.

Results: A total of 24 articles were identified in the review. The review reveals a growing interest in CCR, with 14 articles emphasizing the decision-making process, five using Multidisciplinary Team-Metric for the Observation of Decision Making (MDTs-MODe), three exploring CCR theory, and two focusing on the problem-solving process. Communication, trust, and team dynamics emerge as key influencers in healthcare decision-making. Notably, only two articles provide specific CCR definitions.

Conclusions: While decision-making processes dominate CCR studies, a notable gap exists in defining and structuring CCR. Explicit theoretical frameworks, such as those proposed by Blondon et al. and Kiesewetter et al., are crucial for advancing research and understanding CCR dynamics within collaborative teams. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of CCR research, revealing a growing interest and diversity in the field. The review emphasizes the need for explicit theoretical frameworks, citing Blondon et al. and Kiesewetter et al. The broader landscape of interprofessional collaboration and clinical reasoning requires exploration.

Keywords: Collaborative clinical reasoning; Health professions; Scoping; Shared mental.

Publication types

Review

MeSH terms

Clinical Reasoning
Decision Making, Shared
Delivery of Health Care*
Health Personnel
Humans
Problem Solving*

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the National Science and Technology Council (R.O.C.) (grant number: NSTC 111-2628-H-182-001), and the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan (grant number: CMRPG3L1531). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.