ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Putting the pieces together: Clinical judgment from the perspective of registered nurse anaesthetists and anaesthesiologists at tracheal extubations after general anaesthesia.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtubation of patients undergoing general anaesthesia is a shared concern among registered nurse anaesthetists and anaesthesiologists. Although it has been described as complex and unpredictable, knowledge of this critical moment remains limited. Clinical judgment is consistently applied when making crucial decisions regarding patient care. This study aimed to investigate how RNAs and ANs expressed clinical judgment during extubation through noticing, interpreting, responding, and reflecting.
methodsA qualitative reflexive thematic analysis was conducted, using interviews with registered nurse anaesthetists and anaesthesiologists from university and regional hospitals in Sweden. Triangulation was used to explore the perspectives of registered nurse anaesthetists (n = 20) and anaesthesiologists (n = 17) at extubations. Two datasets, one from focus group interviews with registered nurse anaesthetists and one from individual interviews with anaesthesiologists, were used to triangulate data.
resultsExtubation was described as a dynamic process of clinical judgment, where anaesthesia professionals continuously integrated clinical cues, experience, and situational awareness to ensure patient safety. Multisensory patient-related and situational cues were attended to and integrated to form an initial understanding of the patient's condition. These cues were interpreted through prior experience and pattern recognition, while responses were shaped by context and often guided by embodied intuition. Reflection both in action and on action supported ongoing adjustment and the development of clinical judgment over time.
conclusionsDuring extubation, registered nurse anaesthetists and anaesthesiologists exercised clinical judgment by putting the pieces together, continuously integrating clinical cues, experience, and situational awareness. This process involved multisensory noticing, experience-based interpretation, context-dependent responding often guided by embodied intuition, and ongoing reflection to ensure patient safety. These findings highlight the importance of supporting clinical judgment through experience-based learning, reflective practice, and work environments that enable focused attention during extubation.
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.