Effect of a self-instructional guide to clinical reasoning on the diagnostic accuracy of undergraduate nursing students: a randomized clinical trial

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a Self-instructional Guide for Clinical Reasoning on the diagnostic accuracy of baccalaureate nursing students during case study solving. A blind and parallel randomized clinical trial was performed, with two phases, and intervention (using the guide) and control (without using the guide) group. Data collection took place from February to June 2019 with students from four classes of two undergraduate Nursing courses in the State of Paraná, Brazil. Those who were regularly enrolled, present in the first phase of the application and attended, with approval, the subjects of Fundamentals of Nursing Care and Adult and Elderly Health and their correspondents were included; Those with a medical diagnosis of dyslexia or who did not complete the resolution of the second phase case study were excluded. Two validated case studies were used, which simulated patients with difficulty breathing. The activity required the student to identify a patient's priority nursing diagnosis/patient problem, the etiology of this problem and the clues (signs and symptoms) that justified this problem. To assess the accuracy of the answers, validated rubrics were used, based on the Lunney Diagnostic Accuracy Scale, with consensus, after evaluation, by two researchers. Descriptive statistics were used for demographic data; Fisher's exact test to determine similarities in prior education, gender, and student confidence in knowledge and use; Mann-Whitney test for age analysis; Nonparametric Anova test for repeated measures in the evaluation of the hypothesis that there is a difference in the evolution of students' scores over time in both groups. P values <0.05 were considered significant. The final sample consisted of 51 students, 24 in the control group and 27 in the intervention group; 82.4% (n = 42) female and 98% (n = 50) attending the first graduation; with an average age of 22 years and with no difference between groups. Decreased scores were identified, with statistical difference between phase 1 and 2 for diagnostic accuracy (p=0.041) and for etiological accuracy (p=0.0351) in the phase 2 intervention group. There was a reduction in the identification of relevant clues in both groups, however without statistical difference. There was a negative effect on the use of the Guide; It can be inferred that a single application without a previous explanation may have influenced the results. Considering the potential of the Guide in the development of clinical reasoning and diagnostic accuracy of students, its application is suggested as a didactic tool throughout the semester, with a prior explanation of the teacher, to favor quality care and patient safety.