Clinical reasoning by pharmacists: A scoping review

Abstract

Background: Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency for pharmacists, but there is a lack of conceptual clarity that complicates teaching and assessment. This scoping review was conducted to identify, map, and examine evidence on used cognitive processes and their conceptualization of clinical reasoning by pharmacists.

Methods: In March 2021, seven databases were searched for relevant primary research studies. Included were studies that examined cognitive processes in pharmacists while addressing a clinical scenario in a pharmacy-related setting. Using descriptive analysis, study characteristics, conceptualizations, operationalizations, and key findings were mapped, summarized, and examined. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

Results: From 2252 abstracts, 17 studies were included that examined clinical reasoning in the context of forming a diagnosis (n = 9) or determining medication appropriateness (n = 4). Most studies conceptualized clinical reasoning as a context-dependent cognitive process whereby pharmacists apply and integrate knowledge and clinical experience to interpret available clinical data. Different terms labelled pharmacists' reasoning that showed analytical and intuitive approaches to clinical scenarios, either separately or combined. Medication review studies reported a predominance of analytical reasoning. The majority of diagnosis-forming studies in primary care identified no distinct cognitive reasoning pattern when addressing self-care scenarios.

Implications: This overview reflects a small but growing body of research on clinical reasoning by pharmacists. It is recommended that this competence be taught by explicating and reflecting on clinical reasoning as separate stage of the clinical decision-making process with transparent cognitive processes.

Keywords: Clinical decision-making; Clinical reasoning; Education; Pharmacist; Scoping review.