Clinical judgment performance of undergraduate Nursing students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.4843.3452Keywords:
Nursing Education, Nursing Students, Clinical Decision-Making, Clinical Competence, Nursing Process, Self-AssessmentAbstract
Objective: to evaluate the reported performance regarding clinical judgment by undergraduate Nursing students. Method: a cross-sectional study with the application of the Lasater Clinical Judgment Rubric-Brazilian Version in 166 undergraduate Nursing students from a Brazilian public university. The data were analyzed descriptively and analytically (by comparing the level of clinical judgment among students from the initial, intermediate, and concluding groups). The following tests were applied: Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact and Kruskal-Wallis, and a p-value of 0.05 was adopted. The reliability of the global instrument (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.786. Results: of the 166 students, 65.7% evaluated themselves as proficient in relation to the reported performance on clinical judgment. Of the rubric’s 11 dimensions (focused observation, recognizing deviations from expected patterns, information seeking, prioritizing data, making sense of data, calm and confident manner, clear communication, well-planned intervention/flexibility, being skillful, evaluation/self-analysis, and commitment to improvement), only four groups did not present significant differences among them (p<0.05): focused observation, information seeking, prioritizing data, and calm and confident manner. Conclusion: the performance on clinical judgment reported as proficient was pointed out by 65.7% of the students and a significant statistical difference was verified in seven dimensions, among beginners, intermediate, and concluding students, compatible with the evolution of learning.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.