Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41958850›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2026

Beyond protocol versus judgment: A qualitative study of nurses' prioritization and integration strategies.

Dana Brik, Anat Drach-Zahavy, Nadya Golfenstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Dana BrikCenter for Advanced Nursing Education, Coordinator of Clinical Training, Rambam - Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.
Anat Drach-ZahavyUniversity of Haifa, Cheryl Spencer's Department of Nursing, Haifa, Israel.
Nadya GolfensteinUniversity of Haifa, Cheryl Spencer's Department of Nursing, Haifa, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The tension between protocol adherence and clinical judgment is a central challenge in nursing practice. While protocols ensure standardization and safety, their rigid application can hinder clinical reasoning, patient-centered care, and professional autonomy. Although this tension is well-documented, research on how nurses achieve balance between these competing demands is lacking. Objective: to examine how nurses experience and cope with the competing demands of strictly adhering to protocols versus exercising clinical judgment. Specifically, to identify the modes of response, guiding criteria, behavioral coping strategies, and the consequences of each approach. Design: A qualitative descriptive design was employed. Method: In-depth interviews were conducted with 20 nurses purposively sampled from five internal medicine departments. Interviews focused on concrete clinical situations and were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis until data saturation was achieved. Results: Analysis identified three empirically recurring response patterns: prioritizing protocols, prioritizing clinical judgment, and integrating both approaches. Nurses who prioritized protocols often felt strained and reported negative emotions such as frustration and helplessness. Those relying on clinical judgment described emotional tolls like self-doubt, social sanctions and fear of consequences. In contrast, nurses who integrated both approaches experienced a mix of positive and negative emotions and reported enhanced patient care and personal growth. Key integrative coping strategies included anticipation, institutional navigation, coalition building, and reflective processing. Conclusions: The findings provide practice-near, descriptive insights into how nurses navigate the persistent tension between protocol adherence and clinical judgment. Theoretically, the findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how paradoxes are navigated in healthcare. Practically, the study underscores the need for healthcare organizations to cultivate integrative thinking, emotional and coping flexibility through supportive leadership, psychological safety, and reflective practices for fostering more adaptive, resilient, and patient-centered care systems.

Indexed as

Coping strategiesDecision makingNursesParadox theoryProfessional discretionProtocols

Identifiers

PMID41958850
PMCPMC13059106

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.