Author
Listed:
- Alison Twycross
- Lucy Powls
Abstract
Aims and objectives. To gain an understanding of how children's nurses make clinical decisions. Background. Several studies have explored how nurses make clinical decisions and the factors that may affect the decision‐making strategies used. However, the results of these studies are contradictory. Further, little is known about children's nurses’ decision‐making strategies. Design. The think aloud technique. Methods. Nurses (n = 12) from three surgical wards and nurses (n = 15) from three medical wards in a Scottish children's hospital were presented with clinical scenarios and asked to think aloud. The verbal protocols were analysed to provide an indication of how children's nurses made decisions. Whether there were any differences in decision‐making between experienced and less experienced nurses and between graduates and non‐graduates was also explored. Results. Analysis of verbal protocols obtained using the think aloud technique suggested that all the nurses in the sample used a hypothetico‐deductive (analytical) model of decision‐making. Further, all participants appeared to use backward reasoning strategies regardless of their level of expertise. This is a characteristic of non‐expert decision‐making. Experienced and less experienced nurses collected similar additional information before planning nursing interventions, supporting the conjecture that they were functioning at a non‐expert level in relation to decision‐making. No differences were seen in the information collected by graduate and non‐graduate nurses. Conclusions. The decision‐making strategies of children's nurses need exploring further and further research is needed to identify factors that may affect decision‐making strategies. Several strategies to support nurses’ clinical decision‐making have been proposed but need testing to ascertain their effectiveness. Relevance to clinical practice. In clinical practice nurses make numerous decisions throughout the course of a shift. Sub‐optimal decision‐making strategies may adversely affect the quality of nursing care provided. It is imperative, therefore, to ascertain how nurses make clinical decisions and the factors that may influence the decision‐making strategies used.
Suggested Citation
Alison Twycross & Lucy Powls, 2006.
"How do children's nurses make clinical decisions? Two preliminary studies,"
Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(10), pages 1324-1335, October.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:10:p:1324-1335
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01453.x
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- James Whyte & Roxanne Pickett‐Hauber & Maria D. Whyte, 2016.
"Option generation in the treatment of unstable patients: An experienced‐novice comparison study,"
Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 370-378, September.
- Keziban Avcı & Songül Çınaroğlu & Mehmet Top, 2017.
"Perceptions of Pediatric Nurses on Ethical Decision Making Processes,"
Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 67-84, February.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:15:y:2006:i:10:p:1324-1335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.