IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v25y2016i7-8p1016-1024.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An exploration of the correlates of nurse practitioners’ clinical decision‐making abilities

Author

Listed:
  • Shiah‐Lian Chen
  • Hsiu‐Ying Hsu
  • Chin‐Fu Chang
  • Esther Ching‐Lan Lin

Abstract

Aims and objectives This study investigated nurse practitioners’ clinical decision‐making abilities and the factors that affect these abilities. Background Nurse practitioners play an important role in clinical care decision‐making; however, studies exploring the factors that affect their decision‐making abilities are lacking. Design A cross‐sectional descriptive survey was employed. Methods A purposive sample of 197 nurse practitioners was recruited from a medical centre in central Taiwan. Structured questionnaires consisting of the Knowledge Readiness Scale, the Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory and the Clinical Decision‐Making Model Inventory were used to collect data. Results The intuitive‐analytical type was the most commonly used decision‐making model, and the intuitive type was the least frequently used model. The decision‐making model used was significantly related to the nurse practitioners’ work unit. Significant differences were noted between the nurse practitioners’ clinical decision‐making models and their critical thinking dispositions (openness and empathy). The nurse practitioners’ years of work experience, work unit, professional knowledge and critical thinking disposition (openness and empathy as well as holistic and reflective dispositions) predicted the nurse practitioners’ analytical decision‐making scores. Age, years of nurse practitioner work experience, work unit and critical thinking disposition (holistic and reflective) predicted the nurse practitioners’ intuitive decision‐making scores. Conclusions This study contributes to the topic of clinical decision‐making by describing various types of nurse practitioner decision‐making. The factors associated with analytic and intuitive decision‐making scores were identified. These findings might be beneficial when planning continuing education programmes to enhance the clinical decision‐making abilities of nurse practitioners. Relevance to clinical practice The study results showed that nurse practitioners demonstrated various clinical decision‐making types across different work units. Consideration of nurse practitioners’ knowledge readiness and their specific needs while planning on‐duty education programmes is necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiah‐Lian Chen & Hsiu‐Ying Hsu & Chin‐Fu Chang & Esther Ching‐Lan Lin, 2016. "An exploration of the correlates of nurse practitioners’ clinical decision‐making abilities," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(7-8), pages 1016-1024, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:7-8:p:1016-1024
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13136
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.13136?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. Yue Wang & Wai‐Tong Chien & Sheila Twinn, 2012. "An exploratory study on baccalaureate‐prepared nurses’ perceptions regarding clinical decision‐making in mainland China," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(11‐12), pages 1706-1715, June.
    2. Tracey Norris & Vidar Melby, 2006. "The Acute Care Nurse Practitioner: challenging existing boundaries of emergency nurses in the United Kingdom," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 253-263, March.
    3. Jean E Pretz & Victoria N Folse, 2011. "Nursing experience and preference for intuition in decision making," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(19‐20), pages 2878-2889, October.
    4. Shiow‐Y Hwang & Miaofen Yen & Bih‐O Lee & Mei‐C Huang & Hung‐F Tseng, 2010. "A critical thinking disposition scale for nurses: short form," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(21‐22), pages 3171-3176, November.
    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. Marie Hutchinson & John Hurley & Desirée Kozlowski & Leeann Whitehair, 2018. "The use of emotional intelligence capabilities in clinical reasoning and decision‐making: A qualitative, exploratory study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3-4), pages 600-610, February.

    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. Stanley KK Lam & Enid WY Kwong & Maria SY Hung & Samantha MC Pang, 2016. "Bridging the gap between guidelines and practice in the management of emerging infectious diseases: a qualitative study of emergency nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(19-20), pages 2895-2905, October.
    2. Elise Sullivan & Karen Francis & Desley Hegney, 2010. "Triage, treat and transfer: reconceptualising a rural practice model," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(11‐12), pages 1625-1634, June.
    3. Evelyn McElhinney, 2010. "Factors which influence nurse practitioners ability to carry out physical examination skills in the clinical area after a degree level module – an electronic Delphi study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(21‐22), pages 3177-3187, November.
    4. Sian Jones & Paul Gill & Joyce Kenkre, 2020. "Nurse managed patient focused assessment and care: A grounded theory of qualified nurses in acute and critical care settings assessing the mental capacity of adult patients," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7-8), pages 1254-1266, April.
    5. Imbulana Arachchi, Janaki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2021. "Preferences for energy sustainability: Different effects of gender on knowledge and importance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    6. Christine W. Nibbelink & Barbara B. Brewer, 2018. "Decision‐making in nursing practice: An integrative literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 917-928, March.
    7. Fong Ka Ling & Khatijah Lim Binti Abdullah & Gan Seng Chiew & Mahmoud Danaee & Caryn Mei Hsien Chan, 2021. "The Impact of High Fidelity Patient Simulation on the Level of Knowledge and Critical Thinking Skills in Code Blue Management Among Undergraduate Nursing Students in Malaysia," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    8. Gülten S. Dağ & Songül Bişkin & Meral Gözkaya, 2019. "Determination of nursing procedures and competencies in emergency departments: A cross‐sectional study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 307-315, September.
    9. Sunyoung Oh & Minkyung Gu & Sohyune Sok, 2022. "A Concept Analysis of Nurses’ Clinical Decision Making: Implications for Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.
    10. Laserina O'Connor, 2010. "Commentary on Mantzoukas S & Watkinson S (2007) Advanced nursing practice: reviewing the international literature and developing the generic features. Journal of Clinical Nursing 16, 28–37," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(19‐20), pages 2944-2947, October.
    11. Ernst, Jette, 2019. "The curse of bureaucratisation or the blessings of professionalisation? Nurses’ engaged adoption of quality management in hybrid managerial positions," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(3).

    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:wly:jocnur:v:25:y:2016:i:7-8:p:1016-1024. 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: 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.

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