Helping novice nurses make effective clinical decisions: the situated clinical decision-making framework.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature of novice nurses' clinical decision-making has been well documented as linear, based on limited knowledge and experience in the profession, and frequently focused on single tasks or problems. Theorists suggest that, with sufficient experience in the clinical setting, novice nurses will move from reliance on abstract principles to the application of concrete experience and to view a clinical situation within its context and as a whole. In the current health care environment, novice nurses frequently work with few clinical supports and mentors while facing complex patient situations that demand skilled decision-making. The Situated Clinical Decision-Making Framework is presented for use by educators and novice nurses to support development of clinical decision-making. It provides novice nurses with a tool that a) assists them in making decisions; b) can be used to guide retrospective reflection on decision-making processes and outcomes; c) socializes them to an understanding of the nature of decision-making in nursing; and d) fosters the development of their knowledge, skill, and confidence as nurses. This article provides an overview of the framework, including its theoretical foundations and a schematic representation of its components. A case exemplar illustrates one application of the framework in assisting novice nurses in developing their decision-making skills. Future directions regarding the use and study of this framework in nursing education are considered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".