Critical care cardiovascular nurse expert and novice diagnostic cue utilization
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
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?
Domain knowledge informs practice and practice, in turn, shapes knowledge.
“Domain knowledge, according to Reischman and Yarandi (2002), informs practice and practice, in turn, shapes knowledge.”
From The acquisition and exercise of nephrology nursing expertise: a grounded theory study (2006) · cites this paper as Reischman and Yarandi (2002)
Cites
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 · Cited by 4,479 · see citing works
Acquisition of cognitive skill
Anderson, J. R. (1982) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.89.4.369 · Cited by 3,663 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The acquisition and exercise of nephrology nursing expertise: a grounded theory study
Bonner, A., & Greenwood, J. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01361.x · Cited by 27 · see citing works
- Authors
- Reischman, R. R., & Yarandi, H. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reischman, Rosalyn R.
- ORCID
- Yarandi, Hossein N.
- 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