The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical reasoning: concept analysis
Abstract
simmons b. (2010) Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66(5), 1151–1158. Title. Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. Aim. This paper is a report of a concept analysis of clinical reasoning in nursing. Background. Clinical reasoning is an ambiguous term that is often used synonymously with decision‐making and clinical judgment. Clinical reasoning has not been clearly defined in the literature. Healthcare settings are increasingly filled with uncertainty, risk and complexity due to increased patient acuity, multiple comorbidities, and enhanced use of technology, all of which require clinical reasoning. Data sources. Literature for this concept analysis was retrieved from several databases, including CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC and OvidMEDLINE, for the years 1980 to 2008. Review methods. Rodgers’s evolutionary method of concept analysis was used because of its applicability to concepts that are still evolving. Results. Multiple terms have been used synonymously to describe the thinking skills that nurses use. Research in the past 20 years has elucidated differences among these terms and identified the cognitive processes that precede judgment and decision‐making. Our concept analysis defines one of these terms, ‘clinical reasoning,’ as a complex process that uses cognition, metacognition, and discipline‐specific knowledge to gather and analyse patient information, evaluate its significance, and weigh alternative actions. Conclusion. This concept analysis provides a middle‐range descriptive theory of clinical reasoning in nursing that helps clarify meaning and gives direction for future research. Appropriate instruments to operationalize the concept need to be developed. Research is needed to identify additional variables that have an impact on clinical reasoning and what are the consequences of clinical reasoning in specific situations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,161
Theory of games and economic behavior
(2019) · 100 Years of Math Milestones · doi:10.1090/mbk/121/32 · Cited by 16,632
Axten, N., Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2063712 · Cited by 6,834
Newell, A. (1972) · Cited by 6,222
The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
Harrison, R. W., von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1945) · Journal of Farm Economics · doi:10.2307/1232672 · Cited by 5,133
FROM NOVICE TO EXPERT EXCELLENCE AND POWER IN CLINICAL NURSING PRACTICE
Benner, P. (1984) · AJN, American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/00000446-198412000-00025 · Cited by 4,706
FROM NOVICE TO EXPERT: EXCELLENCE AND POWER IN CLINICAL NURSING PRACTICE
Benner, P. (1984) · AJN, American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/00000446-198412000-00027 · Cited by 2,860
Thinking Like a Nurse: A Research-Based Model of Clinical Judgment in Nursing
Tanner, C. A. (2006) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/01484834-20060601-04 · Cited by 1,735
A Five-Stage Model of the Mental Activities Involved in Directed Skill Acquisition
Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980) · doi:10.21236/ada084551 · Cited by 1,572 · cited 1×
“In their seminal work, Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1980) developed a model of skill acquisition that ranked a person’s performance according to five levels of proficiency.”
Background
Cited by
Healthcare Simulation Standards of Best PracticeTM Simulation Design
Watts, P. I., McDermott, D. S., Alinier, G., Charnetski, M., Ludlow, J., Horsley, E., Meakim, C., & Nawathe, P. A. (2021) · Clinical Simulation in Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.009 · Cited by 731
Sound clinical judgment in nursing: A concept analysis: MANETTI
Manetti, W. (2019) · Nursing Forum · doi:10.1111/nuf.12303 · Cited by 112
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
Teaching strategies of clinical reasoning in advanced nursing clinical practice: A scoping review
Giuffrida, S., Silano, V., Ramacciati, N., Prandi, C., Baldon, A., & Bianchi, M. (2023) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103548 · Cited by 87
Emerging trends in gamification for clinical reasoning education: a scoping review
Lee, C.-Y., Lee, C.-H., Lai, H.-Y., Chen, P.-J., Chen, M.-M., & Yau, S.-Y. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-07044-7 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Simmons, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Advanced Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1151-1158
- ISSN
- 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2648
- OpenAlex
- W2088756834
- Cited by
- 417
- References
- 51
- FWCI
- 9.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x
- The paper
- Simmons, B. (2010). Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.