Some surprising similarities in the clinical reasoning of‘expert’ and ‘novice’ orthopaedic nurses: report of a study using verbal protocols and protocol analyses
Abstract
This paper reports on an Australian study of 'expert' and 'novice' orthopaedic nursing practitioners' clinical reasoning. Concurrent and retrospective verbal reports of patient assessment and care planning in real 'everyday' practice situations were collected from nine pairs of 'expert' and 'novice' orthopaedic nurses. Verbal protocol analyses revealed that the experts used the same level of concepts as novices, that their clinical reasoning was as physically orientated as that of novices, and that the implicit constructions of nursing in the reasonings of both experts and novices were consistent with a 'medical model' of health care. The research design, limitations and findings are discussed.
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?
No studies relating to expertise have been undertaken, in Australia or elsewhere, which focus on nephrology nursing.
“While studies relating to expertise have been undertaken in a range of nursing contexts and specialties (see for example Benner et al 1992, Greenwood & King 1995, Cioffi & Markham 1997, King & Macleod Clark 2002, Reischman & Yarandi 2002) to date none have been undertaken, in Australia or elsewhere, which focus on nephrology nursing.”
From The acquisition and exercise of nephrology nursing expertise: a grounded theory study (2006) · cites this paper as Greenwood & King 1995
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
Self-citation
- Authors
- Greenwood, J., & King, M.
- Affiliations
- Western Sydney University (AU)
- Flinders University (AU)
- ORCID
- Greenwood, J
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 907-913
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W2009306492
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 3.30
- 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 › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
- Keywords
- clinical reasoning, orthopedic nursing, verbal protocols, protocol analysis, patient assessment, care planning, nursing knowledge
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Clinical Competence, Clinical Protocols, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Processes, Nursing Process, Retrospective Studies, Nursing Evaluation Research, Orthopedic Nursing
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
