Cited by 74Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealth Sciences Research and EducationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Critical care cardiovascular nurse expert and novice diagnostic cue utilization

Reischman, Rosalyn R., Yarandi, Hossein N.·2002·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Aim Critical care cardiovascular (CCCV) nursing diagnostic expertise was the focus of this research. The purpose of the study was to compare diagnostic cue utilization between expert and novice CCCV nurses. Background Knowledge related to objective measures of clinical nursing diagnostic expertise would enhance effective and efficient recognition, utilization, and reward of clinical expertise. Methods Five CCCV written simulations served as instruments in the study. Diagnostic content areas included left ventricular dysfunction, cardiac tamponade, sepsis, right ventricular failure, and hypovolemia related to internal abdominal haemorrhage. The sample was composed of 23 expert and 23 novice nurses. After reading each simulation, subjects were asked to verbally recall the simulation, give an impression of the predominant problem or diagnosis, and give a diagnostic explanation. Verbal recalls were audio-taped for protocol analysis. Diagnostic accuracy and cue utilization were determined through comparisons of subjects' recalled diagnoses and cues with results from an expert panel review consensus. The major variable was the mean recalled proportion of highly relevant cues to total cues (HRC/TC) on accurately diagnosed simulations. Chi-square analysis revealed that diagnostic accuracy was greater with experts than with novices. Differences between and among simulations, expertise, accuracy and the mean proportion of highly relevant cues to total cues were examined with a 4 x 2 x…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.02239.x

Cites

2 of 2 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
Reischman, R. R., & Yarandi, H. N.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Reischman, Rosalyn R.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-06-20
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
24-34
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2052144518
Cited by
74
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
diagnostic expertise, clinical judgment, diagnostic accuracy, verbal protocol analysis, left ventricular dysfunction, cardiac tamponade, sepsis, right heart failure, hypovolemia
MeSH terms
Adult, Cardiovascular Diseases, Clinical Competence, Critical Care, Cues, Humans, Nursing Diagnosis, Tape Recording, Multivariate Analysis

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