The ‘five rights’ of clinical reasoning: An educational model to enhance nursing students’ ability to identify and manage clinically ‘at risk’ patients
Abstract
Acute care settings are characterised by patients with complex health problems who are more likely to be or become seriously ill during their hospital stay. Although warning signs often precede serious adverse events there is consistent evidence that 'at risk' patients are not always identified or managed appropriately. 'Failure to rescue', with rescue being the ability to recognise deteriorating patients and to intervene appropriately, is related to poor clinical reasoning skills. These factors provided the impetus for the development of an educational model that has the potential to enhance nursing students' clinical reasoning skills and consequently their ability to manage 'at risk' patients. Clinical reasoning is the process by which nurses collect cues, process the information, come to an understanding of a patient problem or situation, plan and implement interventions, evaluate outcomes, and reflect on and learn from the process. Effective clinical reasoning depends upon the nurse's ability to collect the right cues and to take the right action for the right patient at the right time and for the right reason. This paper provides an overview of a clinical reasoning model and the literature underpinning the 'five rights' of clinical reasoning.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Clinical Reasoning Evaluation Simulation Tool (CREST) was developed by Liaw et al. and is based on Levett-Jones et al.'s clinical reasoning cycle.
“The Clinical Reasoning Evaluation Simulation Tool (CREST) was developed by Liaw, et al. [25] and is based on Levett-Jones, et al. [4]’s clinical reasoning cycle.”
From Turkish adaptation of the clinical reasoning evaluation simulation tool (CREST-TR): a validity and reliability study (2025) · cites this paper as Levett-Jones, et al. [4]
Cites
Lamond, D., & Farnell, S. (1998) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00532.x · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Virtual Simulation to Enhance Clinical Reasoning in Nursing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Sim, J. J. M., Rusli, K. D. B., Seah, B., Levett-Jones, T., Lau, Y., & Liaw, S. Y. (2022) · Clinical Simulation in Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2022.05.006 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Self-citationJohnsen, H. M., Fossum, M., Vivekananda-Schmidt, P., Fruhling, A., & Slettebø, Å. (2016) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.06.014 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Liou, S., Liu, H., Tsai, H., Tsai, Y., Lin, Y., Chang, C., & Cheng, C. (2016) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.12831 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Alshehri, F. D., Jones, S., & Harrison, D. (2023) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105679 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Löfgren, U., Wälivaara, B.-M., Strömbäck, U., & Lindberg, B. (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103747 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Mwale, O. G., Mukwato, P. K., & Kabinga-Makukula, M. (2025) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-03064-2 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Teaching with intelligence; AI-enhanced pedagogies in nursing education: a scoping review
Nugent, L., Murray, B., Moore, Z., Patton, D., O’Connor, T., Watson, C., Walsh, K., Renjith, V., & George, J. (2026) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2026.104878 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Bayzat, C., & Dinc, L. (2025) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-03503-0 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Levett-Jones, T., Hoffman, K., Dempsey, J., Jeong, S. Y.-S., Noble, D., Norton, C. A., Roche, J., & Hickey, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Levett-Jones, Tracy
- Venue
- Nurse Education Today
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 515-520
- ISSN
- 0260-6917 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2095159597
- Cited by
- 484
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 57 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 3.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nurse Education Today (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Keywords
- clinical reasoning, nursing students, at-risk patients, clinical deterioration, failure to rescue, nursing education models, acute care, adverse events
- MeSH terms
- Acute Disease, Clinical Competence, Cues, Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate, Humans, Judgment, Logic, Nursing Assessment, Nursing Process, Problem Solving, Students, Nursing, Thinking, Time Factors, Models, Nursing, Models, Educational, Risk Assessment, Patient Rights
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review