scholarly journals Critical thinking: concept analysis from the perspective of Rodger's evolutionary method of concept analysis

Author(s):  
Fábio da Costa Carbogim ◽  
Larissa Bertacchini de Oliveira ◽  
Vilanice Alves de Araújo Püschel

ABSTRACT Objective: to analyze the concept of critical thinking (CT) in Rodger's evolutionary perspective. Method: documentary research undertaken in the Cinahl, Lilacs, Bdenf and Dedalus databases, using the keywords of 'critical thinking' and 'Nursing', without limitation based on year of publication. The data were analyzed in accordance with the stages of Rodger's conceptual model. The following were included: books and articles in full, published in Portuguese, English or Spanish, which addressed CT in the teaching and practice of Nursing; articles which did not address aspects related to the concept of CT were excluded. Results: the sample was made up of 42 works. As a substitute term, emphasis is placed on 'analytical thinking', and, as a related factor, decision-making. In order, the most frequent preceding and consequent attributes were: ability to analyze, training of the student nurse, and clinical decision-making. As the implications of CT, emphasis is placed on achieving effective results in care for the patient, family and community. Conclusion: CT is a cognitive skill which involves analysis, logical reasoning and clinical judgment, geared towards the resolution of problems, and standing out in the training and practice of the nurse with a view to accurate clinical decision-making and the achieving of effective results.

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
Mark Tonelli

In their call to develop a consistent, coherent and comprehensive notion of person-centered medicine, Miles and Mezzich have elucidated several specific challenges that need to be urgently addressed. One of these foundational tasks is the development of a more complete understanding of person-centered clinical decision-making. Miles and Mezzich note that while the emphasis on clinical research in evidence-based medicine has served to de-emphasize the importance of the individual patient, the alternative of patient-centered medicine has the potential to de-emphasize the judgment of the clinician by making unfettered patient choice paramount. A practice of medicine that reduces professional healers to an informational role only, one where they lay out potential interventions devoid of context and allow patients to choose from amongst them, undervalues clinical expertise and will clearly not lead to better outcomes. Person-centered medicine (PCM), then, must be able to develop and defend a model of clinical judgment and practice that strikes the correct balance between the science of medicine and the personal experience of the individual in search of care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document