IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/hin/jnlnrp/524918.html

Clinical Decision Making of Nurses Working in Hospital Settings

Author

Listed:
  • Ida Torunn Bjørk
  • Glenys A. Hamilton

Abstract

This study analyzed nurses' perceptions of clinical decision making (CDM) in their clinical practice and compared differences in decision making related to nurse demographic and contextual variables. A cross-sectional survey was carried out with 2095 nurses in four hospitals in Norway. A 24-item Nursing Decision Making Instrument based on cognitive continuum theory was used to explore how nurses perceived their CDM when meeting an elective patient for the first time. Data were analyzed with descriptive frequencies, t -tests, Chi-Square test, and linear regression. Nurses' decision making was categorized into analytic-systematic, intuitive-interpretive, and quasi-rational models of CDM. Most nurses reported the use of quasi-rational models during CDM thereby supporting the tenet that cognition most often includes properties of both analysis and intuition. Increased use of intuitive-interpretive models of CDM was associated with years in present job, further education, male gender, higher age, and working in predominantly surgical units.

Suggested Citation

  • Ida Torunn Bjørk & Glenys A. Hamilton, 2011. "Clinical Decision Making of Nurses Working in Hospital Settings," Nursing Research and Practice, Hindawi, vol. 2011, pages 1-8, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:hin:jnlnrp:524918
    DOI: 10.1155/2011/524918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/NRP/2011/524918.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/NRP/2011/524918.xml
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1155/2011/524918?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goldstein,William M. & Hogarth,Robin M. (ed.), 1997. "Research on Judgment and Decision Making," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521483346, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. The‐Phung To & Gillian Dunnachie & Jo‐anne Brien & David A. Story, 2019. "Surgical nurses' perceptions and experiences of a medications and oral restrictions policy change: A focus group study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(17-18), pages 3242-3251, September.
    2. Daphne SK Lee & Khatijah Lim Abdullah & Pathmawathi Subramanian & Robert Thomas Bachmann & Swee Leong Ong, 2017. "An integrated review of the correlation between critical thinking ability and clinical decision‐making in nursing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(23-24), pages 4065-4079, December.
    3. Nikolina Farčić & Ivana Barać & Jadranka Plužarić & Vesna Ilakovac & Stana Pačarić & Zvjezdana Gvozdanović & Robert Lovrić, 2020. "Personality traits of core self-evaluation as predictors on clinical decision-making in nursing profession," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-12, May.
    4. Nikolina Farčić & Ivana Barać & Robert Lovrić & Stana Pačarić & Zvjezdana Gvozdanović & Vesna Ilakovac, 2020. "The Influence of Self-Concept on Clinical Decision-Making in Nurses and Nursing Students: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-13, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "Investigating intuitive and deliberate processes statistically: The multiple-measure maximum likelihood strategy classification method," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(3), pages 186-199, April.
    2. McKenzie, Craig R.M. & Liersch, Michael J. & Yaniv, Ilan, 2008. "Overconfidence in interval estimates: What does expertise buy you?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 179-191, November.
    3. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How Distinct are Intuition and Deliberation? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Instruction-Induced Decision Modes," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2009_10, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    4. Paul Clay Sorum & Thomas R. Stewart & Etienne Mullet & Claudia González-Vallejo & Junseop Shim & Gérard Chasseigne & María Teresa Muñoz Sastre & Bernard Grenier, 2002. "Does Choosing a Treatment Depend on Making a Diagnosis? US and French Physicians’ Decision Making about Acute Otitis Media," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(5), pages 394-402, October.
    5. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Reasonable patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1397-1421, October.
    6. Momi Dahan & Tehila Kogut & Moshe Shalem, 2009. "Do Economic Policymakers Practice what they Preach? The Case of Pension Decisions," CESifo Working Paper Series 2783, CESifo.
    7. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "Regions of Rationality: Maps for Bounded Agents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 124-144, September.
    8. Baethge, Caroline & Fiedler, Marina, 2016. "All or (almost) nothing? The influence of information cost and training on information selection and the quality of decision-making," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Betriebswirtschaftliche Reihe B-19-16, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    9. Andersson, Patric, 2005. "Overconfident but yet well-calibrated and underconfident : a research not on judgmental miscalibration and flawed self-assessment," Papers 05-37, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    10. Vandegrift, Donald & Yavas, Abdullah, 2009. "Men, women, and competition: An experimental test of behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 554-570, October.
    11. Charles F. Manski, 2016. "Credible Ecological Inference for Personalized Medicine: Formalizing Clinical Judgment," NBER Working Papers 22643, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Eric J. Johnson & Wendy W. Moe & Peter S. Fader & Steven Bellman & Gerald L. Lohse, 2004. "On the Depth and Dynamics of Online Search Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 299-308, March.
    13. Yoav Ganzach, 2009. "Coherence and correspondence in the psychological analysis of numerical predictions: How error-prone heuristics are replaced by ecologically valid heuristics," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(2), pages 175-185, March.
    14. Alan Schwartz & Julie Goldberg & Gordon Hazen, 2008. "Prospect theory, reference points, and health decisions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 174-180, February.
    15. Ben Newell & Arndt Bröder, 2008. "Cognitive processes, models and metaphors in decision research," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 195-204, March.
    16. Nina Horstmann & Andrea Ahlgrimm & Andreas Glöckner, 2009. "How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 335-354, August.
    17. Dimitrios Kourtidis & Željko Šević & Prodromos Chatzoglou, 2016. "Mood and stock returns: evidence from Greece," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 43(2), pages 242-258, May.
    18. D.Dragone, 2005. "Incoerenza Dinamica ed Autocontrollo: Proposta per un'Analisi Interdisciplinare," Working Papers 549, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    19. Damian Morgan & Joan Ozanne-Smith, 2019. "A configural model of expert judgement as a preliminary epidemiological study of injury problems: An application to drowning," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Dubard Barbosa, Saulo & Fayolle, Alain & Smith, Brett R., 2019. "Biased and overconfident, unbiased but going for it: How framing and anchoring affect the decision to start a new venture," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 528-557.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hin:jnlnrp:524918. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Mohamed Abdelhakeem (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.hindawi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.