Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42069542›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2026

Extending Tanner's framework: the digital clinical judgment model for nursing education.

Gro Gade Haanes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 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

1 author.

Gro Gade HaanesFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Institute for Nursing and Health Science, University of Southeastern Norway, Campus Vestfold, Horten, Norway. groh@usn.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5334-6193

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical judgment is a core competency across healthcare professions and is commonly conceptualized through Tanner's model, which incorporates four phases of clinical judgment: noticing, interpreting, responding and reflecting. While Tanner's framework has informed assessment and reflection tools, less attention has been paid to how clinical judgment can be facilitated through pedagogical design in digital and blended learning environments.

aimThis article presents the new Digital Clinical Judgment Model (DCJM), a pedagogical model developed to support the teaching and learning of clinical judgment in digital nursing education.

methodsThe DCJM was developed using an iterative conceptual synthesis of Tanner's Clinical Judgment Model, educational theories of sociocultural learning, scaffolding and deep learning, as well as from empirical insights into digital nursing education obtained during the COVID-19 pandemic.

resultsThe DCJM integrates Tanner's four phases of clinical judgment within three interrelated layers of support: pedagogical structure, social and emotional support and technological support. This approach outlines design conditions that enable meaningful engagement in clinical judgment across digital, blended and practice-based learning contexts. DISCUSSION: Clinical judgment should be supported through the design of learning environments rather than an outcome to be assessed. This new approach represents a pedagogical rather than an evaluative perspective.

conclusionAs a conceptually grounded pedagogical model, the DCJM offers educators a theoretically informed and practically applicable framework for designing learning environments that support the development of clinical judgment in contemporary nursing education. Further empirical research is needed to determine its usefulness in practice and its impact on student learning and educational design.

Indexed as

Blended learningClinical judgmentDigital clinical judgment model (DCJM)Digital learning environmentsNursing educationPedagogical design

Identifiers

PMID42069542
PMCPMC13274000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.