ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Uncovering the tacit: a qualitative study of obstetric nurses' risk recognition and decision-making in perinatal care.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study explored how obstetric nurses identify and manage clinical risks under high-pressure and uncertain conditions, with emphasis on the tacit cognitive processes shaping their judgment. Design: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using a phenomenological approach, based on Tanner's Clinical Judgment Model. Methods: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 25 obstetric nurses from three tertiary hospitals in western China. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach. The interview guide was developed and refined according to Tanner's four phases-noticing, interpreting, responding, and reflecting-to capture the multidimensional nature of clinical judgment. Results: A total of 11 interconnected subthemes were identified across the four dimensions. In the noticing phase, nurses recognized baseline conditions, detected atypical cues, and developed experience-driven vigilance. The interpreting phase involved synthesizing multi-source cues and, critically, managing conflicting signals when subjective impressions and objective indicators diverged-a key finding that reveals how intuitive and analytical reasoning interact in clinical ambiguity. The responding phase encompassed prioritizing action, communicating and seeking peer confirmation, and acting under uncertainty. The reflecting phase entailed recurrent self-review, reflective learning, and the development of heightened risk sensitivity. A cross-cutting theme of sustained risk vigilance permeated all stages, representing nurses' enduring attentiveness to subtle warning signs and potential deterioration. Conclusion: Obstetric risk recognition is not merely technical but an iterative cognitive process integrating perception, experience, emotion, and reflection. Nurses' risk vigilance functions as a tacit safeguard in managing uncertainty and ensuring maternal safety. Clinical implications: The findings highlight the need to strengthen a simulation-based training program that targets ambiguous cues, promote reflective debriefing and peer learning, and design institutional environments that support collaborative and emotionally sustainable decision-making in obstetric care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.