The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thinking Like a Nurse: A Research-Based Model of Clinical Judgment in Nursing
Abstract
This article reviews the growing body of research on clinical judgment in nursing and presents an alternative model of clinical judgment based on these studies. Based on a review of nearly 200 studies, five conclusions can be drawn: (1) Clinical judgments are more influenced by what nurses bring to the situation than the objective data about the situation at hand; (2) Sound clinical judgment rests to some degree on knowing the patient and his or her typical pattern of responses, as well as an engagement with the patient and his or her concerns; (3) Clinical judgments are influenced by the context in which the situation occurs and the culture of the nursing care unit; (4) Nurses use a variety of reasoning patterns alone or in combination; and (5) Reflection on practice is often triggered by a breakdown in clinical judgment and is critical for the development of clinical knowledge and improvement in clinical reasoning. A model based on these general conclusions emphasizes the role of nurses' background, the context of the situation, and nurses' relationship with their patients as central to what nurses notice and how they interpret findings, respond, and reflect on their response.
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
Promoting reflection in professional courses: The challenge of context
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1998) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079812331380384 · Cited by 980
The Narrative Nature of Clinical Reasoning
Mattingly, C. (1991) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.45.11.998 · Cited by 319
Recognition of patients who require emergency assistance: A descriptive study
Cioffi, J. (2000) · Heart & Lung · doi:10.1067/mhl.2000.108327 · Cited by 114
Cited by
Levett-Jones, T., Hoffman, K., Dempsey, J., Jeong, S. Y.-S., Noble, D., Norton, C. A., Roche, J., & Hickey, N. (2010) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.10.020 · Cited by 484
Clinical reasoning: concept analysis
Simmons, B. (2010) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x · Cited by 417
Decision‐making in nursing practice: An integrative literature review
Nibbelink, C. W., & Brewer, B. B. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.14151 · Cited by 404
Using Debriefing for Meaningful Learning to Foster Development of Clinical Reasoning in Simulation
Dreifuerst, K. T. (2012) · Journal of Nursing Education · doi:10.3928/01484834-20120409-02 · Cited by 366
Kavanagh, J. M., & Szweda, C. (2017) · Nursing Education Perspectives · doi:10.1097/01.nep.0000000000000112 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Tanner, C. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Nursing Education
- Publisher
- SLACK, Inc.
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 204-211
- ISSN
- 0148-4834 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-2421
- OpenAlex
- W2157118987
- Cited by
- 1,735
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 14.97
- 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: Thinking Like a Nurse: A Research-Based Model of Clinical Judgment in Nursing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3928/01484834-20060601-04
- The paper
- Tanner, C. A. (2006). Thinking Like a Nurse: A Research-Based Model of Clinical Judgment in Nursing. Journal of Nursing Education. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20060601-04
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.