Cited by 484Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealth Sciences Research and EducationPatient Safety and Medication Errors

The ‘five rights’ of clinical reasoning: An educational model to enhance nursing students’ ability to identify and manage clinically ‘at risk’ patients

Levett-Jones, Tracy, Hoffman, Kerry, Dempsey, Jennifer, Jeong, Sarah Yeun-Sim, Noble, Danielle, Norton, Carol Anne, Roche, Janiece, Hickey, Noelene·2010·Nurse Education Today

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nedt.2009.10.020

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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