医疗职业类型、性别和从业年限对思维方式的影响:对患者安全的影响是什么?

A. O. Bataweel
{"title":"医疗职业类型、性别和从业年限对思维方式的影响:对患者安全的影响是什么?","authors":"A. O. Bataweel","doi":"10.4236/jbbs.2022.1211034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Healthcare providers were faced daily with many decision-making that impacted patients’ safety. According to dual process theory, there were two types of thinking: Experiential style (ES) and Rational Style (RS). Both thinking styles had an impact on individuals’ decisions making. Therefore, the aim of this study was to find out nurses’ and physicians’ styles of thinking and how this impacted patients’ safety. Design: A cross-sectional study. Me-thods: Nurses and physicians sample of adults (n = 308), 190 (61.7%) of the sample were nurses and 118 (38.3%) of the sample were physicians. Participants completed a self-report online survey, which included demographic information followed by questionnaires to measure thinking style and a cognitive puzzle to see if the medical error was associated with certain styles of thinking. Results: The main findings were that nurses (M = 2.41, SD = 0.37) had significantly higher scores compared to physicians (M = 2.29, SD = 0.39) in their ES, t(305) = 2.73, p = 0.007; with medium effect size, d = 0.37692. Conclusion: Nurses differed from physicians in ES where nurses had a significantly higher score than physicians which could be positive for patients’ safety as higher ES would report errors compared to lower ES.","PeriodicalId":69804,"journal":{"name":"行为与脑科学期刊(英文)","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of Medical Profession Type, Gender, and Years of Experience on Thinking Styles: What Are the Implications for Patient Safety?\",\"authors\":\"A. O. Bataweel\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/jbbs.2022.1211034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Healthcare providers were faced daily with many decision-making that impacted patients’ safety. According to dual process theory, there were two types of thinking: Experiential style (ES) and Rational Style (RS). Both thinking styles had an impact on individuals’ decisions making. Therefore, the aim of this study was to find out nurses’ and physicians’ styles of thinking and how this impacted patients’ safety. Design: A cross-sectional study. Me-thods: Nurses and physicians sample of adults (n = 308), 190 (61.7%) of the sample were nurses and 118 (38.3%) of the sample were physicians. Participants completed a self-report online survey, which included demographic information followed by questionnaires to measure thinking style and a cognitive puzzle to see if the medical error was associated with certain styles of thinking. Results: The main findings were that nurses (M = 2.41, SD = 0.37) had significantly higher scores compared to physicians (M = 2.29, SD = 0.39) in their ES, t(305) = 2.73, p = 0.007; with medium effect size, d = 0.37692. Conclusion: Nurses differed from physicians in ES where nurses had a significantly higher score than physicians which could be positive for patients’ safety as higher ES would report errors compared to lower ES.\",\"PeriodicalId\":69804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"行为与脑科学期刊(英文)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"行为与脑科学期刊(英文)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/jbbs.2022.1211034\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"行为与脑科学期刊(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/jbbs.2022.1211034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:医疗保健提供者每天都面临着许多影响患者安全的决策。根据双过程理论,人的思维有两种类型:经验型(ES)和理性型(RS)。两种思维方式都对个人的决策产生影响。因此,本研究的目的是了解护士和医生的思维方式及其对患者安全的影响。设计:横断面研究。方法:成人护士和医生样本308例,其中护士190例(61.7%),医生118例(38.3%)。参与者完成了一项自我报告在线调查,其中包括人口统计信息,随后是测量思维方式的问卷和认知难题,以查看医疗差错是否与某些思维方式有关。结果:主要发现护士(M = 2.41, SD = 0.37)的ES得分显著高于内科医生(M = 2.29, SD = 0.39), t(305) = 2.73, p = 0.007;中等效应量时,d = 0.37692。结论:护士在ES方面与医生不同,护士的得分明显高于医生,这可能对患者的安全有利,因为较高的ES比较低的ES更容易报告错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Impact of Medical Profession Type, Gender, and Years of Experience on Thinking Styles: What Are the Implications for Patient Safety?
Background: Healthcare providers were faced daily with many decision-making that impacted patients’ safety. According to dual process theory, there were two types of thinking: Experiential style (ES) and Rational Style (RS). Both thinking styles had an impact on individuals’ decisions making. Therefore, the aim of this study was to find out nurses’ and physicians’ styles of thinking and how this impacted patients’ safety. Design: A cross-sectional study. Me-thods: Nurses and physicians sample of adults (n = 308), 190 (61.7%) of the sample were nurses and 118 (38.3%) of the sample were physicians. Participants completed a self-report online survey, which included demographic information followed by questionnaires to measure thinking style and a cognitive puzzle to see if the medical error was associated with certain styles of thinking. Results: The main findings were that nurses (M = 2.41, SD = 0.37) had significantly higher scores compared to physicians (M = 2.29, SD = 0.39) in their ES, t(305) = 2.73, p = 0.007; with medium effect size, d = 0.37692. Conclusion: Nurses differed from physicians in ES where nurses had a significantly higher score than physicians which could be positive for patients’ safety as higher ES would report errors compared to lower ES.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
424
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信