CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealth Sciences Research and EducationHealthcare Education and Workforce Issues

Sound clinical judgment in nursing: A concept analysis: MANETTI

Open access
Manetti, Wendy·2019·Nursing Forum
DOI 10.1111/nuf.12303
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The intent of this concept analysis is to offer a clear understanding of the definition, defining attributes, antecedents, and consequences of sound clinical judgment pertaining to nursing practice. BACKGROUND: Sound clinical judgment is essential in nursing because decisions made influence patient outcomes. DESIGN: This concept analysis guided by Walker and Avant's framework, dissects the concept to promote clarity and consensus. DATA SOURCE: CINAHL, ProQuest for Nursing and Allied Health, ERIC, and Health Source/Nursing Academic Edition databases were searched using the keyword clinical judgment. REVIEW METHODS: Articles in peer reviewed, scholarly journals written in English were considered from 1984 to 2017. RESULTS: The author concluded that decision-making is a surrogate term for clinical judgment. The attributes, antecedents, and consequences are discussed and supported by evidence. Cases illustrate the essence of the concept. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical judgment is an ambiguous term that is synonymous with the term decision-making. It results from critical thinking and clinical reasoning. Using these findings, educators and administrators can use valid and reliable methods to identify the presence, foster the development, and measure the existence of clinical judgment in novice nurses with an ultimate goal to improve patient care.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/nuf.12303

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Effective nursing care requires individualization within the broader context of hospital protocols and practice standards.

    “Effective nursing care (Manetti, 2019) requires individualization within the broader context of hospital protocols and practice standards.”

    From Scoping Review of Postpartum Discharge Education Provided by Nurses (2022) · cites this paper as Manetti, 2019

    The Derived Definition section identifies personalizing actions to the particular patient as a feature of sound clinical judgment, and section 6.2 says decisions must consider standards of care. The paper does not specifically frame individualized care as occurring within hospital protocols, so that part of the claim is not established. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Nurse knowledge, judgement, and expertise and women's needs and characteristics influence outcomes.

    “Nurse knowledge, judgement, and expertise (Manetti, 2019; Suplee et al., 2017) and women’s needs, and characteristics influence outcomes.”

    From Scoping Review of Postpartum Discharge Education Provided by Nurses (2022) · cites this paper as Manetti, 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Stedman online medical dictionary accessed via Wolters Kluwer Health on 23 May, 2018.
  2. Benner P, Tanner C, Chelsa C. Expertise in Nursing Practices. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Publishing; 2009.
  3. Tanner CA. Thinking about critical thinking. J Nurs Educ. 1993;31:99-100.
  4. Facione NC, Facione PA. Critical Thinking And Clinical Judgment. In Critical Thinking And Clinical Reasoning In The Health Sciences: A Teaching Anthology. Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment/The California Academic Press; 2008:1-13.
  5. Scheffer BK, Rubenfeld MG. A consensus statement on critical thinking. J Nurs Educ. 2000;39:352-359.
  6. Aristotle. Nicomachean ethics, 2nd ed. Irwin T, trans-ed. Indianapolis: Cambridge; 1999.
  7. Turkel MC. Describing self-reported assessments of critical thinking among practicing medical-surgical registered nurses. MEDSURG Nurs. 2016;25(4):244-250.
  8. Muntean, W. J., (2012). Nursing clinical decision-making: A literature review. National Council State Board of Nursing: Research Library. https://www.ncsbn.org. Accessed May 20, 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Manetti, W.
Affiliations
University of Scranton (US)
Corresponding author
Manetti, Wendy
ORCID
Manetti, Wendy
Venue
Nursing Forum
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-10-31
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
102-110
ISSN
0029-6473 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/nuf.12303
OpenAlex
W2898638098
Cited by
112
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3
FWCI
8.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nursing Forum (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 › Leadership and Management › Healthcare Education and Workforce Issues
Keywords
clinical judgment, nursing decision-making, critical thinking, clinical reasoning, novice nurses, nursing education, patient outcomes
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Concept Formation, Humans, Judgment, Nurses, Thinking

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