Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36412270›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2023

Investigating the clinical decision-making of nursing students using high-fidelity simulation, observation and think aloud: A mixed methods research study.

Naim Abdulmohdi, Andrew Mcvicar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Decision support strategies for bedside nursing clinical reasoning: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Naim AbdulmohdiSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3818-965X
Andrew McvicarSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim of this study was to investigate nursing students' clinical decision-making by using high-fidelity simulation of a deteriorated patient scenario.

designA convergent parallel mixed methods research design was used consisting of quantitative and qualitative data collection.

methodsTwenty-three students completed the Health Science Reasoning Test before and after the simulation between October 2015 and June 2016. They were presented with a simulated scenario and asked to 'think aloud' during and after the simulation. The students were audio-video recorded and observations were collected by the researcher.

resultsThere was a significant moderate increase in the 'deduction' and 'analysis' sub-scale scores and overall test score, suggestive of improved analytical decision-making processes through the simulation experience. Think-aloud and observation data identified that students predominantly applied 'forward' reasoning during the simulated 'patient's' deterioration, focusing mainly on cue acquisition. 'Backward' reasoning with a focus on cue interpretation was most prominent in the debriefing data, in line with the survey outcomes. Accurate cue interpretation of critical, key cues appeared more useful than the total number of cues in solving the main clinical case problem.

conclusionStudents learn different clinical decision-making skills during the simulation compared to what they learn from debriefing. Using observation and think-aloud methods have significant benefits for researchers seeking to optimize the evaluation of the clinical decision-making process.

Indexed as

High Fidelity Simulation TrainingStudents, NursingClinical CompetenceClinical Decision-MakingHumansProblem SolvingSurveys and Questionnairesclinical decision-makingdual process theoryhigh-fidelity simulationnursingnursing studentsobservationthink aloudverbal protocol analysis

Identifiers

PMID36412270
PMCPMC10099619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.