Creating The Thinking Practitioner Creating the Thinking Practitioner: Critical Thinking in Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay looks at training nurses in British Columbia (Canada) to be critical thinkers through the use of nurses' narrative notes of patient care. The paper argues that the registered nurse can use the Nursing Process, a nursing problem solving framework that relies on the nurse's ability to think logically, to critically reflect on care provided and to ensure safe practice. The Process is a five-step thinking framework based on a nursing assessment of patient needs in which subjective and objective data are collected. The data are analyzed, the problem is identified, and plans are created for resolution of the problem. The validity of the goals and the outcomes of the interventions are evaluated in the final step of the process. Each phase should be reflected in the patient care record. Teaching strategies that promote critical thinking skills in nursing students can be designed also as a means to promote self-evaluation. Analytic writing exercises based on the narrative nursing notes written by the student are used to facilitate independent learning. Students who are given opportunities to reflect on the nursing notes they have recorded can begin to recognize the imperfections in their thought processes and eventually to become independent critical thinkers capable of assuring the provision of safe, quality patient care. (JB) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. NZ
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.312 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".