critical thinking meaning in healthcare

The Value of Critical Thinking in Nursing

• How Nurses Use Critical Thinking
• How to Improve Critical Thinking
• Common Mistakes

Some experts describe a person’s ability to question belief systems, test previously held assumptions, and recognize ambiguity as evidence of critical thinking. Others identify specific skills that demonstrate critical thinking, such as the ability to identify problems and biases, infer and draw conclusions, and determine the relevance of information to a situation.

Nicholas McGowan, BSN, RN, CCRN, has been a critical care nurse for 10 years in neurological trauma nursing and cardiovascular and surgical intensive care. He defines critical thinking as “necessary for problem-solving and decision-making by healthcare providers. It is a process where people use a logical process to gather information and take purposeful action based on their evaluation.”

“This cognitive process is vital for excellent patient outcomes because it requires that nurses make clinical decisions utilizing a variety of different lenses, such as fairness, ethics, and evidence-based practice,” he says.

How Do Nurses Use Critical Thinking?

Successful nurses think beyond their assigned tasks to deliver excellent care for their patients. For example, a nurse might be tasked with changing a wound dressing, delivering medications, and monitoring vital signs during a shift. However, it requires critical thinking skills to understand how a difference in the wound may affect blood pressure and temperature and when those changes may require immediate medical intervention.

Nurses care for many patients during their shifts. Strong critical thinking skills are crucial when juggling various tasks so patient safety and care are not compromised.

Jenna Liphart Rhoads, Ph.D., RN, is a nurse educator with a clinical background in surgical-trauma adult critical care, where critical thinking and action were essential to the safety of her patients. She talks about examples of critical thinking in a healthcare environment, saying:

“Nurses must also critically think to determine which patient to see first, which medications to pass first, and the order in which to organize their day caring for patients. Patient conditions and environments are continually in flux, therefore nurses must constantly be evaluating and re-evaluating information they gather (assess) to keep their patients safe.”

The COVID-19 pandemic created hospital care situations where critical thinking was essential. It was expected of the nurses on the general floor and in intensive care units. Crystal Slaughter is an advanced practice nurse in the intensive care unit (ICU) and a nurse educator. She observed critical thinking throughout the pandemic as she watched intensive care nurses test the boundaries of previously held beliefs and master providing excellent care while preserving resources.

“Nurses are at the patient’s bedside and are often the first ones to detect issues. Then, the nurse needs to gather the appropriate subjective and objective data from the patient in order to frame a concise problem statement or question for the physician or advanced practice provider,” she explains.

Top 5 Ways Nurses Can Improve Critical Thinking Skills

We asked our experts for the top five strategies nurses can use to purposefully improve their critical thinking skills.

Case-Based Approach

Slaughter is a fan of the case-based approach to learning critical thinking skills.

In much the same way a detective would approach a mystery, she mentors her students to ask questions about the situation that help determine the information they have and the information they need. “What is going on? What information am I missing? Can I get that information? What does that information mean for the patient? How quickly do I need to act?”

Consider forming a group and working with a mentor who can guide you through case studies. This provides you with a learner-centered environment in which you can analyze data to reach conclusions and develop communication, analytical, and collaborative skills with your colleagues.

Practice Self-Reflection

Rhoads is an advocate for self-reflection. “Nurses should reflect upon what went well or did not go well in their workday and identify areas of improvement or situations in which they should have reached out for help.” Self-reflection is a form of personal analysis to observe and evaluate situations and how you responded.

This gives you the opportunity to discover mistakes you may have made and to establish new behavior patterns that may help you make better decisions. You likely already do this. For example, after a disagreement or contentious meeting, you may go over the conversation in your head and think about ways you could have responded.

It’s important to go through the decisions you made during your day and determine if you should have gotten more information before acting or if you could have asked better questions.

During self-reflection, you may try thinking about the problem in reverse. This may not give you an immediate answer, but can help you see the situation with fresh eyes and a new perspective. How would the outcome of the day be different if you planned the dressing change in reverse with the assumption you would find a wound infection? How does this information change your plan for the next dressing change?

Develop a Questioning Mind

McGowan has learned that “critical thinking is a self-driven process. It isn’t something that can simply be taught. Rather, it is something that you practice and cultivate with experience. To develop critical thinking skills, you have to be curious and inquisitive.”

To gain critical thinking skills, you must undergo a purposeful process of learning strategies and using them consistently so they become a habit. One of those strategies is developing a questioning mind. Meaningful questions lead to useful answers and are at the core of critical thinking .

However, learning to ask insightful questions is a skill you must develop. Faced with staff and nursing shortages , declining patient conditions, and a rising number of tasks to be completed, it may be difficult to do more than finish the task in front of you. Yet, questions drive active learning and train your brain to see the world differently and take nothing for granted.

It is easier to practice questioning in a non-stressful, quiet environment until it becomes a habit. Then, in the moment when your patient’s care depends on your ability to ask the right questions, you can be ready to rise to the occasion.

Practice Self-Awareness in the Moment

Critical thinking in nursing requires self-awareness and being present in the moment. During a hectic shift, it is easy to lose focus as you struggle to finish every task needed for your patients. Passing medication, changing dressings, and hanging intravenous lines all while trying to assess your patient’s mental and emotional status can affect your focus and how you manage stress as a nurse .

Staying present helps you to be proactive in your thinking and anticipate what might happen, such as bringing extra lubricant for a catheterization or extra gloves for a dressing change.

By staying present, you are also better able to practice active listening. This raises your assessment skills and gives you more information as a basis for your interventions and decisions.

Use a Process

As you are developing critical thinking skills, it can be helpful to use a process. For example:

• Ask questions.
• Gather information.
• Implement a strategy.
• Evaluate the results.
• Consider another point of view.

These are the fundamental steps of the nursing process (assess, diagnose, plan, implement, evaluate). The last step will help you overcome one of the common problems of critical thinking in nursing — personal bias.

Common Critical Thinking Pitfalls in Nursing

Your brain uses a set of processes to make inferences about what’s happening around you. In some cases, your unreliable biases can lead you down the wrong path. McGowan places personal biases at the top of his list of common pitfalls to critical thinking in nursing.

“We all form biases based on our own experiences. However, nurses have to learn to separate their own biases from each patient encounter to avoid making false assumptions that may interfere with their care,” he says. Successful critical thinkers accept they have personal biases and learn to look out for them. Awareness of your biases is the first step to understanding if your personal bias is contributing to the wrong decision.

New nurses may be overwhelmed by the transition from academics to clinical practice, leading to a task-oriented mindset and a common new nurse mistake ; this conflicts with critical thinking skills.

“Consider a patient whose blood pressure is low but who also needs to take a blood pressure medication at a scheduled time. A task-oriented nurse may provide the medication without regard for the patient’s blood pressure because medication administration is a task that must be completed,” Slaughter says. “A nurse employing critical thinking skills would address the low blood pressure, review the patient’s blood pressure history and trends, and potentially call the physician to discuss whether medication should be withheld.”

Fear and pride may also stand in the way of developing critical thinking skills. Your belief system and worldview provide comfort and guidance, but this can impede your judgment when you are faced with an individual whose belief system or cultural practices are not the same as yours. Fear or pride may prevent you from pursuing a line of questioning that would benefit the patient. Nurses with strong critical thinking skills exhibit:

• Learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of other nurses
• Look forward to integrating changes that improve patient care
• Treat each patient interaction as a part of a whole
• Evaluate new events based on past knowledge and adjust decision-making as needed
• Solve problems with their colleagues
• Are self-confident
• Acknowledge biases and seek to ensure these do not impact patient care

An Essential Skill for All Nurses

Critical thinking in nursing protects patient health and contributes to professional development and career advancement. Administrative and clinical nursing leaders are required to have strong critical thinking skills to be successful in their positions.

By using the strategies in this guide during your daily life and in your nursing role, you can intentionally improve your critical thinking abilities and be rewarded with better patient outcomes and potential career advancement.

Frequently Asked Questions About Critical Thinking in Nursing

How are critical thinking skills utilized in nursing practice.

Nursing practice utilizes critical thinking skills to provide the best care for patients. Often, the patient’s cause of pain or health issue is not immediately clear. Nursing professionals need to use their knowledge to determine what might be causing distress, collect vital information, and make quick decisions on how best to handle the situation.

How does nursing school develop critical thinking skills?

Nursing school gives students the knowledge professional nurses use to make important healthcare decisions for their patients. Students learn about diseases, anatomy, and physiology, and how to improve the patient’s overall well-being. Learners also participate in supervised clinical experiences, where they practice using their critical thinking skills to make decisions in professional settings.

Do only nurse managers use critical thinking?

Nurse managers certainly use critical thinking skills in their daily duties. But when working in a health setting, anyone giving care to patients uses their critical thinking skills. Everyone — including licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, and advanced nurse practitioners —needs to flex their critical thinking skills to make potentially life-saving decisions.

Meet Our Contributors

Crystal Slaughter, DNP, APRN, ACNS-BC, CNE

Crystal Slaughter is a core faculty member in Walden University’s RN-to-BSN program. She has worked as an advanced practice registered nurse with an intensivist/pulmonary service to provide care to hospitalized ICU patients and in inpatient palliative care. Slaughter’s clinical interests lie in nursing education and evidence-based practice initiatives to promote improving patient care.

Jenna Liphart Rhoads, Ph.D., RN

Jenna Liphart Rhoads is a nurse educator and freelance author and editor. She earned a BSN from Saint Francis Medical Center College of Nursing and an MS in nursing education from Northern Illinois University. Rhoads earned a Ph.D. in education with a concentration in nursing education from Capella University where she researched the moderation effects of emotional intelligence on the relationship of stress and GPA in military veteran nursing students. Her clinical background includes surgical-trauma adult critical care, interventional radiology procedures, and conscious sedation in adult and pediatric populations.

Nicholas McGowan, BSN, RN, CCRN

Nicholas McGowan is a critical care nurse with 10 years of experience in cardiovascular, surgical intensive care, and neurological trauma nursing. McGowan also has a background in education, leadership, and public speaking. He is an online learner who builds on his foundation of critical care nursing, which he uses directly at the bedside where he still practices. In addition, McGowan hosts an online course at Critical Care Academy where he helps nurses achieve critical care (CCRN) certification.

You are using an outdated browser

Unfortunately Ausmed.com does not support your browser. Please upgrade your browser to continue.

Cultivating Critical Thinking in Healthcare

Published: 06 January 2019

Critical thinking skills have been linked to improved patient outcomes, better quality patient care and improved safety outcomes in healthcare (Jacob et al. 2017).

Given this, it's necessary for educators in healthcare to stimulate and lead further dialogue about how these skills are taught , assessed and integrated into the design and development of staff and nurse education and training programs (Papp et al. 2014).

So, what exactly is critical thinking and how can healthcare educators cultivate it amongst their staff?

What is Critical Thinking?

In general terms, ‘ critical thinking ’ is often used, and perhaps confused, with problem-solving and clinical decision-making skills .

In practice, however, problem-solving tends to focus on the identification and resolution of a problem, whilst critical thinking goes beyond this to incorporate asking skilled questions and critiquing solutions .

Several formal definitions of critical thinking can be found in literature, but in the view of Kahlke and Eva (2018), most of these definitions have limitations. That said, Papp et al. (2014) offer a useful starting point, suggesting that critical thinking is:

‘The ability to apply higher order cognitive skills and the disposition to be deliberate about thinking that leads to action that is logical and appropriate.’

The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2017) expands on this and suggests that:

‘Critical thinking is that mode of thinking, about any subject, content, or problem, in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analysing, assessing, and reconstructing it.’

They go on to suggest that critical thinking is:

• Self-directed
• Self-disciplined
• Self-monitored
• Self-corrective.

Key Qualities and Characteristics of a Critical Thinker

Given that critical thinking is a process that encompasses conceptualisation , application , analysis , synthesis , evaluation and reflection , what qualities should be expected from a critical thinker?

In answering this question, Fortepiani (2018) suggests that critical thinkers should be able to:

• Formulate clear and precise questions
• Gather, assess and interpret relevant information
• Reach relevant well-reasoned conclusions and solutions
• Think open-mindedly, recognising their own assumptions
• Communicate effectively with others on solutions to complex problems.

All of these qualities are important, however, good communication skills are generally considered to be the bedrock of critical thinking. Why? Because they help to create a dialogue that invites questions, reflections and an open-minded approach, as well as generating a positive learning environment needed to support all forms of communication.

Lippincott Solutions (2018) outlines a broad spectrum of characteristics attributed to strong critical thinkers. They include:

• Inquisitiveness with regard to a wide range of issues
• A concern to become and remain well-informed
• Alertness to opportunities to use critical thinking
• Self-confidence in one’s own abilities to reason
• Open mindedness regarding divergent world views
• Flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions
• Understanding the opinions of other people
• Fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning
• Honesty in facing one’s own biases, prejudices, stereotypes or egocentric tendencies
• A willingness to reconsider and revise views where honest reflection suggests that change is warranted.

Papp et al. (2014) also helpfully suggest that the following five milestones can be used as a guide to help develop competency in critical thinking:

Stage 1: Unreflective Thinker

At this stage, the unreflective thinker can’t examine their own actions and cognitive processes and is unaware of different approaches to thinking.

Stage 2: Beginning Critical Thinker

Here, the learner begins to think critically and starts to recognise cognitive differences in other people. However, external motivation  is needed to sustain reflection on the learners’ own thought processes.

Stage 3: Practicing Critical Thinker

By now, the learner is familiar with their own thinking processes and makes a conscious effort to practice critical thinking.

Stage 4: Advanced Critical Thinker

As an advanced critical thinker, the learner is able to identify different cognitive processes and consciously uses critical thinking skills.

Stage 5: Accomplished Critical Thinker

At this stage, the skilled critical thinker can take charge of their thinking and habitually monitors, revises and rethinks approaches for continual improvement of their cognitive strategies.

Facilitating Critical Thinking in Healthcare

A common challenge for many educators and facilitators in healthcare is encouraging students to move away from passive learning towards active learning situations that require critical thinking skills.

Just as there are similarities among the definitions of critical thinking across subject areas and levels, there are also several generally recognised hallmarks of teaching for critical thinking . These include:

• Promoting interaction among students as they learn
• Asking open ended questions that do not assume one right answer
• Allowing sufficient time to reflect on the questions asked or problems posed
• Teaching for transfer - helping learners to see how a newly acquired skill can apply to other situations and experiences.

(Lippincott Solutions 2018)

Snyder and Snyder (2008) also make the point that it’s helpful for educators and facilitators to be aware of any initial resistance that learners may have and try to guide them through the process. They should aim to create a learning environment where learners can feel comfortable thinking through an answer rather than simply having an answer given to them.

Examples include using peer coaching techniques , mentoring or preceptorship to engage students in active learning and critical thinking skills, or integrating project-based learning activities that require students to apply their knowledge in a realistic healthcare environment.

Carvalhoa et al. (2017) also advocate problem-based learning as a widely used and successful way of stimulating critical thinking skills in the learner. This view is echoed by Tsui-Mei (2015), who notes that critical thinking, systematic analysis and curiosity significantly improve after practice-based learning .

Integrating Critical Thinking Skills Into Curriculum Design

Most educators agree that critical thinking can’t easily be developed if the program curriculum is not designed to support it. This means that a deep understanding of the nature and value of critical thinking skills needs to be present from the outset of the curriculum design process , and not just bolted on as an afterthought.

In the view of Fortepiani (2018), critical thinking skills can be summarised by the statement that 'thinking is driven by questions', which means that teaching materials need to be designed in such a way as to encourage students to expand their learning by asking questions that generate further questions and stimulate the thinking process. Ideal questions are those that:

• Embrace complexity
• Challenge assumptions and points of view
• Question the source of information
• Explore variable interpretations and potential implications of information.

To put it another way, asking questions with limiting, thought-stopping answers inhibits the development of critical thinking. This means that educators must ideally be critical thinkers themselves .

Drawing these threads together, The Foundation for Critical Thinking (2017) offers us a simple reminder that even though it’s human nature to be ‘thinking’ most of the time, most thoughts, if not guided and structured, tend to be biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or even prejudiced.

They also note that the quality of work depends precisely on the quality of the practitioners’ thought processes. Given that practitioners are being asked to meet the challenge of ever more complex care, the importance of cultivating critical thinking skills, alongside advanced problem-solving skills , seems to be taking on new importance.

Additional Resources

• The Emotionally Intelligent Nurse | Ausmed Article
• Refining Competency-Based Assessment | Ausmed Article
• Socratic Questioning in Healthcare | Ausmed Article
• Carvalhoa, D P S R P et al. 2017, 'Strategies Used for the Promotion of Critical Thinking in Nursing Undergraduate Education: A Systematic Review', Nurse Education Today , vol. 57, pp. 103-10, viewed 7 December 2018, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0260691717301715
• Fortepiani, L A 2017, 'Critical Thinking or Traditional Teaching For Health Professionals', PECOP Blog , 16 January, viewed 7 December 2018, https://blog.lifescitrc.org/pecop/2017/01/16/critical-thinking-or-traditional-teaching-for-health-professions/
• Jacob, E, Duffield, C & Jacob, D 2017, 'A Protocol For the Development of a Critical Thinking Assessment Tool for Nurses Using a Delphi Technique', Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 1982-1988, viewed 7 December 2018, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jan.13306
• Kahlke, R & Eva, K 2018, 'Constructing Critical Thinking in Health Professional Education', Perspectives on Medical Education , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 156-165, viewed 7 December 2018, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40037-018-0415-z
• Lippincott Solutions 2018, 'Turning New Nurses Into Critical Thinkers', Lippincott Solutions , viewed 10 December 2018, https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/turning-new-nurses-into-critical-thinkers
• Papp, K K 2014, 'Milestones of Critical Thinking: A Developmental Model for Medicine and Nursing', Academic Medicine , vol. 89, no. 5, pp. 715-720, https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/Fulltext/2014/05000/Milestones_of_Critical_Thinking___A_Developmental.14.aspx
• Snyder, L G & Snyder, M J 2008, 'Teaching Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills', The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal , vol. L, no. 2, pp. 90-99, viewed 7 December 2018, https://dme.childrenshospital.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Optional-_Teaching-Critical-Thinking-and-Problem-Solving-Skills.pdf
• The Foundation for Critical Thinking 2017, Defining Critical Thinking , The Foundation for Critical Thinking, viewed 7 December 2018, https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-conception-of-critical-thinking/411
• Tsui-Mei, H, Lee-Chun, H & Chen-Ju MSN, K 2015, 'How Mental Health Nurses Improve Their Critical Thinking Through Problem-Based Learning', Journal for Nurses in Professional Development , vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 170-175, viewed 7 December 2018, https://journals.lww.com/jnsdonline/Abstract/2015/05000/How_Mental_Health_Nurses_Improve_Their_Critical.8.aspx

Anne Watkins View profile

Help and feedback, publications.

Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here .

An official website of the Department of Health & Human Services

• Search All AHRQ Sites
• Email Updates

1. Use quotes to search for an exact match of a phrase.

2. Put a minus sign just before words you don't want.

3. Enter any important keywords in any order to find entries where all these terms appear.

• The PSNet Collection
• All Content
• Perspectives
• Current Weekly Issue
• Past Weekly Issues
• Curated Libraries
• Clinical Areas
• Patient Safety 101
• The Fundamentals
• Training and Education
• Continuing Education
• WebM&M: Case Studies
• Training Catalog
• Submit a Case
• Improvement Resources
• Innovations
• Submit an Innovation
• About PSNet
• Editorial Team
• Technical Expert Panel

Developing critical thinking skills for delivering optimal care

Scott IA, Hubbard RE, Crock C, et al. Developing critical thinking skills for delivering optimal care. Intern Med J. 2021;51(4):488-493. doi: 10.1111/imj.15272

Sound critical thinking skills can help clinicians avoid cognitive biases and diagnostic errors. This article describes three critical thinking skills essential to effective clinical care – clinical reasoning, evidence-informed decision-making, and systems thinking – and approaches to develop these skills during clinician training.

Medication use and cognitive impairment among residents of aged care facilities. June 23, 2021

COVID-19 pandemic and the tension between the need to act and the need to know. October 14, 2020

Choosing wisely in clinical practice: embracing critical thinking, striving for safer care. April 6, 2022

Scoping review of studies evaluating frailty and its association with medication harm. June 22, 2022

Countering cognitive biases in minimising low value care. June 7, 2017

'More than words' - interpersonal communication, cognitive bias and diagnostic errors. August 11, 2021

A partially structured postoperative handoff protocol improves communication in 2 mixed surgical intensive care units: findings from the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) prospective cohort study. February 6, 2019

Enabling a learning healthcare system with automated computer protocols that produce replicable and personalized clinician actions. August 4, 2021

Analysis of lawsuits related to diagnostic errors from point-of-care ultrasound in internal medicine, paediatrics, family medicine and critical care in the USA. June 24, 2020

Developing and aligning a safety event taxonomy for inpatient psychiatry. July 13, 2022

Changes in unprofessional behaviour, teamwork, and co-operation among hospital staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. September 28, 2022

Prevalence and causes of diagnostic errors in hospitalized patients under investigation for COVID-19. April 12, 2023

Pharmacists reducing medication risk in medical outpatient clinics: a retrospective study of 18 clinics. March 8, 2023

Barriers to accessing nighttime supervisors: a national survey of internal medicine residents. March 17, 2021

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016 March 3, 2017

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among frontline health care personnel in a multistate hospital network--13 academic medical centers, April-June 2020. September 23, 2020

Transforming the medication regimen review process using telemedicine to prevent adverse events. December 16, 2020

The MedSafer study-electronic decision support for deprescribing in hospitalized older adults: a cluster randomized clinical trial. February 2, 2022

Perceived patient safety culture in a critical care transport program. July 31, 2013

Video-based communication assessment of physician error disclosure skills by crowdsourced laypeople and patient advocates who experienced medical harm: reliability assessment with generalizability theory. May 18, 2022

Implementation of the I-PASS handoff program in diverse clinical environments: a multicenter prospective effectiveness implementation study. November 16, 2022

Patient harm from cardiovascular medications. August 25, 2021

Delays in diagnosis, treatment, and surgery: root causes, actions taken, and recommendations for healthcare improvement. June 1, 2022

Influence of opioid prescription policy on overdoses and related adverse effects in a primary care population. May 19, 2021

Evaluation of a second victim peer support program on perceptions of second victim experiences and supportive resources in pediatric clinical specialties using the second victim experience and support tool (SVEST). November 3, 2021

Diagnostic errors in hospitalized adults who died or were transferred to intensive care. January 17, 2024

Estimation of breast cancer overdiagnosis in a U.S. breast screening cohort. March 16, 2022

Multiple meanings of resilience: health professionals' experiences of a dual element training intervention designed to help them prepare for coping with error. March 31, 2021

Care coordination strategies and barriers during medication safety incidents: a qualitative, cognitive task analysis. March 10, 2021

TRIAD IX: can a patient testimonial safely help ensure prehospital appropriate critical versus end-of-life care? September 15, 2021

An act of performance: exploring residents' decision-making processes to seek help. April 14, 2021

Preventing home medication administration errors. March 14, 2022

A randomized trial of a multifactorial strategy to prevent serious fall injuries. July 29, 2020

Clinical predictors for unsafe direct discharge home patients from intensive care units. October 21, 2020

Association between limiting the number of open records in a tele-critical care setting and retract-reorder errors. July 21, 2021

Standardized assessment of medication reconciliation in post-acute care. April 27, 2022

Estimating the economic cost of nurse sensitive adverse events amongst patients in medical and surgical settings. June 16, 2021

Survey of nurses' experiences applying The Joint Commission's medication management titration standards. November 3, 2021

Physician task load and the risk of burnout among US physicians in a national survey. December 2, 2020

Effectiveness of acute care remote triage systems: a systematic review. February 5, 2020

Hospital ward adaptation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national survey of academic medical centers. September 23, 2020

Patient and physician perspectives of deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications in older adults with a history of falls: a qualitative study. May 5, 2021

We asked the experts: the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations for content and implementation adaptations. March 17, 2021

Association between surgeon technical skills and patient outcomes. September 9, 2020

Developing the Safer Dx Checklist of Ten Safety Recommendations for Health Care Organizations to address diagnostic errors. October 12, 2022

Influence of psychological safety and organizational support on the impact of humiliation on trainee well-being. June 8, 2022

Comparison of health care worker satisfaction before vs after implementation of a communication and optimal resolution program in acute care hospitals. April 5, 2023

Not overstepping professional boundaries: the challenging role of nurses in simulated error disclosures. September 21, 2011

Adherence to national guidelines for timeliness of test results communication to patients in the Veterans Affairs health care system. May 4, 2022

Temporal associations between EHR-derived workload, burnout, and errors: a prospective cohort study. July 20, 2022

Deferral of care for serious non-COVID-19 conditions: a hidden harm of COVID-19. November 18, 2020

Content analysis of patient safety incident reports for older adult patient transfers, handovers, and discharges: do they serve organizations, staff, or patients? January 8, 2020

An observational study of postoperative handoff standardization failures. June 23, 2021

Exploring the impact of employee engagement and patient safety. September 14, 2022

Deprescribing for community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. September 16, 2020

The abrupt expansion of ambulatory telemedicine: implications for patient safety. February 9, 2022

Nurse's Achilles Heel: using big data to determine workload factors that impact near misses. April 14, 2021

A diagnostic time-out to improve differential diagnosis in pediatric abdominal pain. July 14, 2021

What safety events are reported for ambulatory care? Analysis of incident reports from a patient safety organization. October 21, 2020

The July Effect in podiatric medicine and surgery residency. July 14, 2021

Expert consensus on currently accepted measures of harm. September 9, 2020

The calm before the storm: utilizing in situ simulation to evaluate for preparedness of an alternative care hospital during COVID-19 pandemic. June 2, 2021

Missed nursing care in the critical care unit, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparative cross-sectional study. June 22, 2022

The association between nurse staffing and omissions in nursing care: a systematic review. July 11, 2018

Creating a learning health system for improving diagnostic safety: pragmatic insights from US health care organizations. June 22, 2022

Effect of pharmacist counseling intervention on health care utilization following hospital discharge: a randomized control trial. June 8, 2016

Impact of the initial response to COVID-19 on long-term care for people with intellectual disability: an interrupted time series analysis of incident reports. October 14, 2020

Pediatric surgical errors: a systematic scoping review. July 20, 2022

Racial bias in pulse oximetry measurement. December 20, 2020

Accuracy of practitioner estimates of probability of diagnosis before and after testing. May 5, 2021

Recommendations for the safe, effective use of adaptive CDS in the US healthcare system: an AMIA position paper. April 21, 2021

Impact of interoperability of smart infusion pumps and an electronic medical record in critical care. September 23, 2020

Decreased incidence of cesarean surgical site infection rate with hospital-wide perioperative bundle. September 29, 2021

Association of diagnostic stewardship for blood cultures in critically ill children with culture rates, antibiotic use, and patient outcomes: results of the Bright STAR Collaborative. May 18, 2022

Second victim experiences of nurses in obstetrics and gynaecology: a Second Victim Experience and Support Tool Survey December 23, 2020

Understanding the second victim experience among multidisciplinary providers in obstetrics and gynecology. May 19, 2021

eSIMPLER: a dynamic, electronic health record-integrated checklist for clinical decision support during PICU daily rounds. June 16, 2021

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes after the introduction of the Medicare Sepsis Performance Measure (SEP-1). May 5, 2021

Organizational safety climate and job enjoyment in hospital surgical teams with and without crew resource management training, January 26, 2022

The working hours of hospital staff nurses and patient safety. January 9, 2005

Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of pharmacist independent prescribers in care homes: cluster randomised controlled trial. March 1, 2023

Safety II behavior in a pediatric intensive care unit. August 1, 2018

The Critical Care Safety Study: the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care.  August 24, 2005

Diagnosis of physical and mental health conditions in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study. October 21, 2020

Effects of tall man lettering on the visual behaviour of critical care nurses while identifying syringe drug labels: a randomised in situ simulation. April 20, 2022

Family Input for Quality and Safety (FIQS): using mobile technology for in-hospital reporting from families and patients. March 2, 2022

Bundle interventions including nontechnical skills for surgeons can reduce operative time and improve patient safety. December 9, 2020

COVID-19: an emerging threat to antibiotic stewardship in the emergency department. October 21, 2020

Improving self-reported empathy and communication skills through harm in healthcare response training. January 26, 2022

Predicting avoidable hospital events in Maryland. December 1, 2021

Association between in-clinic opioid administration and discharge opioid prescription in urgent care: a retrospective cohort study. February 17, 2021

Why do hospital prescribers continue antibiotics when it is safe to stop? Results of a choice experiment survey. September 2, 2020

Specificity of computerized physician order entry has a significant effect on the efficiency of workflow for critically ill patients. April 21, 2005

COVID-19: patient safety and quality improvement skills to deploy during the surge. June 24, 2020

Patient safety skills in primary care: a national survey of GP educators. February 4, 2015

Implementing human factors in anaesthesia: guidance for clinicians, departments and hospitals: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists. March 1, 2023

Can an electronic prescribing system detect doctors who are more likely to make a serious prescribing error? June 8, 2011

Training in safe opioid prescribing and treatment of opioid use disorder in internal medicine residencies: a national survey of program directors. October 12, 2022

Diagnostic discordance, health information exchange, and inter-hospital transfer outcomes: a population study. June 20, 2018

What has been the impact of Covid-19 on safety culture? A case study from a large metropolitan healthcare trust. September 2, 2020

All in Her Head. The Truth and Lies Early Medicine Taught Us About Women's Bodies and Why It Matters Today. March 20, 2024

The racial disparities in maternal mortality and impact of structural racism and implicit racial bias on pregnant Black women: a review of the literature. December 6, 2023

A scoping review exploring the confidence of healthcare professionals in assessing all skin tones. October 4, 2023

Patient safety in palliative care at the end of life from the perspective of complex thinking. August 16, 2023

Only 1 in 5 people with opioid addiction get the medications to treat it, study finds. August 16, 2023

Factors influencing in-hospital prescribing errors: a systematic review. July 19, 2023

Introducing second-year medical students to diagnostic reasoning concepts and skills via a virtual curriculum. June 28, 2023

Context matters: toward a multilevel perspective on context in clinical reasoning and error. June 21, 2023

The good, the bad, and the ugly: operative staff perspectives of surgeon coping with intraoperative errors. June 14, 2023

Explicitly addressing implicit bias on inpatient rounds: student and faculty reflections. June 7, 2023

The time is now: addressing implicit bias in obstetrics and gynecology education. May 17, 2023

Listen to the whispers before they become screams: addressing Black maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States. May 3, 2023

Annual Perspective

Formalizing the hidden curriculum of performance enhancing errors. March 22, 2023

Implicit racial bias, health care provider attitudes, and perceptions of health care quality among African American college students in Georgia, USA. January 18, 2023

Structural racism and impact on sickle cell disease: sickle cell lives matter. January 11, 2023

The REPAIR Project: a prospectus for change toward racial justice in medical education and health sciences research: REPAIR project steering committee. January 11, 2023

Using the Assessment of Reasoning Tool to facilitate feedback about diagnostic reasoning. January 11, 2023

Exploring the intersection of structural racism and ageism in healthcare. December 7, 2022

Calibrate Dx: A Resource to Improve Diagnostic Decisions. October 19, 2022

Improved Diagnostic Accuracy Through Probability-Based Diagnosis. September 28, 2022

Medical malpractice lawsuits involving trainees in obstetrics and gynecology in the USA. September 21, 2022

A state-of-the-art review of speaking up in healthcare. August 24, 2022

Skin cancer is a risk no matter the skin tone. But it may be overlooked in people with dark skin. August 17, 2022

Oxford Professional Practice: Handbook of Patient Safety. July 27, 2022

Narrowing the mindware gap in medicine. July 20, 2022

From principles to practice: embedding clinical reasoning as a longitudinal curriculum theme in a medical school programme. June 15, 2022

A call to action: next steps to advance diagnosis education in the health professions. June 8, 2022

Does a suggested diagnosis in a general practitioners' referral question impact diagnostic reasoning: an experimental study. April 27, 2022

WebM&M Cases

Connect With Us

Sign up for Email Updates

To sign up for updates or to access your subscriber preferences, please enter your email address below.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 Telephone: (301) 427-1364

• Accessibility
• Disclaimers
• Electronic Policies
• HHS Digital Strategy
• HHS Nondiscrimination Notice
• Inspector General
• Plain Writing Act
• Privacy Policy
• Viewers & Players
• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
• The White House
• Don't have an account? Sign up to PSNet

Submit Your Innovations

Please select your preferred way to submit an innovation.

Continue as a Guest

Track and save your innovation

in My Innovations

Edit your innovation as a draft

Continue Logged In

Please select your preferred way to submit an innovation. Note that even if you have an account, you can still choose to submit an innovation as a guest.

Continue logged in

New users to the psnet site.

Access to quizzes and start earning

CME, CEU, or Trainee Certification.

Get email alerts when new content

matching your topics of interest

in My Innovations.

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Critical thinking in...

Critical Thinking in medical education: When and How?

Rapid response to:

Critical thinking in healthcare and education

• Related content
• Article metrics
• Rapid responses

Rapid Response:

Critical thinking is an essential cognitive skill for the individuals involved in various healthcare domains such as doctors, nurses, lab assistants, patients and so on, as is emphasized by the Authors. Recent evidence suggests that critical thinking is being perceived/evaluated as a domain-general construct and it is less distinguishable from that of general cognitive abilities [1].

People cannot think critically about topics for which they have little knowledge. Critical thinking should be viewed as a domain-specific construct that evolves as an individual acquires domain-specific knowledge [1]. For instance, most common people have no basis for prioritizing patients in the emergency department to be shifted to the only bed available in the intensive care unit. Medical professionals who could thinking critically in their own discipline would have difficulty thinking critically about problems in other fields. Therefore, ‘domain-general’ critical thinking training and evaluation could be non-specific and might not benefit the targeted domain i.e. medical profession.

Moreover, the literature does not demonstrate that it is possible to train universally effective critical thinking skills [1]. As medical teachers, we can start building up student’s critical thinking skill by contingent teaching-learning environment wherein one should encourage reasoning and analytics, problem solving abilities and welcome new ideas and opinions [2]. But at the same time, one should continue rather tapering the critical skills as one ascends towards a specialty, thereby targeting ‘domain-specific’ critical thinking.

For the benefit of healthcare, tools for training and evaluating ‘domain-specific’ critical thinking should be developed for each of the professional knowledge domains such as doctors, nurses, lab technicians and so on. As the Authors rightly pointed out, this humongous task can be accomplished only with cross border collaboration among cognitive neuroscientists, psychologists, medical education experts and medical professionals.

References 1. National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st Century Skills: Summary of a Workshop. J.A. Koenig, Rapporteur. Committee on the Assessment of 21st Century Skills. Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2. Mafakheri Laleh M, Mohammadimehr M, Zargar Balaye Jame S. Designing a model for critical thinking development in AJA University of Medical Sciences. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2016 Oct;4(4):179–87.

Competing interests: No competing interests

What is Critical Thinking in Nursing? (With Examples, Importance, & How to Improve)

Successful nursing requires learning several skills used to communicate with patients, families, and healthcare teams. One of the most essential skills nurses must develop is the ability to demonstrate critical thinking. If you are a nurse, perhaps you have asked if there is a way to know how to improve critical thinking in nursing? As you read this article, you will learn what critical thinking in nursing is and why it is important. You will also find 18 simple tips to improve critical thinking in nursing and sample scenarios about how to apply critical thinking in your nursing career.

What Is Critical Thinking In Nursing?

4 reasons why critical thinking is so important in nursing, 1. critical thinking skills will help you anticipate and understand changes in your patient’s condition., 2. with strong critical thinking skills, you can make decisions about patient care that is most favorable for the patient and intended outcomes., 3. strong critical thinking skills in nursing can contribute to innovative improvements and professional development., 4. critical thinking skills in nursing contribute to rational decision-making, which improves patient outcomes., what are the 8 important attributes of excellent critical thinking in nursing, 1. the ability to interpret information:, 2. independent thought:, 3. impartiality:, 4. intuition:, 5. problem solving:, 6. flexibility:, 7. perseverance:, 8. integrity:, examples of poor critical thinking vs excellent critical thinking in nursing, 1. scenario: patient/caregiver interactions, poor critical thinking:, excellent critical thinking:, 2. scenario: improving patient care quality, 3. scenario: interdisciplinary collaboration, 4. scenario: precepting nursing students and other nurses, how to improve critical thinking in nursing, 1. demonstrate open-mindedness., 2. practice self-awareness., 3. avoid judgment., 4. eliminate personal biases., 5. do not be afraid to ask questions., 6. find an experienced mentor., 7. join professional nursing organizations., 8. establish a routine of self-reflection., 9. utilize the chain of command., 10. determine the significance of data and decide if it is sufficient for decision-making., 11. volunteer for leadership positions or opportunities., 12. use previous facts and experiences to help develop stronger critical thinking skills in nursing., 13. establish priorities., 14. trust your knowledge and be confident in your abilities., 15. be curious about everything., 16. practice fair-mindedness., 17. learn the value of intellectual humility., 18. never stop learning., 4 consequences of poor critical thinking in nursing, 1. the most significant risk associated with poor critical thinking in nursing is inadequate patient care., 2. failure to recognize changes in patient status:, 3. lack of effective critical thinking in nursing can impact the cost of healthcare., 4. lack of critical thinking skills in nursing can cause a breakdown in communication within the interdisciplinary team., useful resources to improve critical thinking in nursing, youtube videos, my final thoughts, frequently asked questions answered by our expert, 1. will lack of critical thinking impact my nursing career, 2. usually, how long does it take for a nurse to improve their critical thinking skills, 3. do all types of nurses require excellent critical thinking skills, 4. how can i assess my critical thinking skills in nursing.

• Ask relevant questions • Justify opinions • Address and evaluate multiple points of view • Explain assumptions and reasons related to your choice of patient care options

5. Can I Be a Nurse If I Cannot Think Critically?

What is Critical Thinking in Nursing? (Explained W/ Examples)

Last updated on August 23rd, 2023

Critical thinking is a foundational skill applicable across various domains, including education, problem-solving, decision-making, and professional fields such as science, business, healthcare, and more.

It plays a crucial role in promoting logical and rational thinking, fostering informed decision-making, and enabling individuals to navigate complex and rapidly changing environments.

In this article, we will look at what is critical thinking in nursing practice, its importance, and how it enables nurses to excel in their roles while also positively impacting patient outcomes.

What is Critical Thinking?

Critical thinking is a cognitive process that involves analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to make reasoned and informed decisions.

It’s a mental activity that goes beyond simple memorization or acceptance of information at face value.

Critical thinking involves careful, reflective, and logical thinking to understand complex problems, consider various perspectives, and arrive at well-reasoned conclusions or solutions.

Key aspects of critical thinking include:

• Analysis: Critical thinking begins with the thorough examination of information, ideas, or situations. It involves breaking down complex concepts into smaller parts to better understand their components and relationships.
• Evaluation: Critical thinkers assess the quality and reliability of information or arguments. They weigh evidence, identify strengths and weaknesses, and determine the credibility of sources.
• Synthesis: Critical thinking involves combining different pieces of information or ideas to create a new understanding or perspective. This involves connecting the dots between various sources and integrating them into a coherent whole.
• Inference: Critical thinkers draw logical and well-supported conclusions based on the information and evidence available. They use reasoning to make educated guesses about situations where complete information might be lacking.
• Problem-Solving: Critical thinking is essential in solving complex problems. It allows individuals to identify and define problems, generate potential solutions, evaluate the pros and cons of each solution, and choose the most appropriate course of action.
• Creativity: Critical thinking involves thinking outside the box and considering alternative viewpoints or approaches. It encourages the exploration of new ideas and solutions beyond conventional thinking.
• Reflection: Critical thinkers engage in self-assessment and reflection on their thought processes. They consider their own biases, assumptions, and potential errors in reasoning, aiming to improve their thinking skills over time.
• Open-Mindedness: Critical thinkers approach ideas and information with an open mind, willing to consider different viewpoints and perspectives even if they challenge their own beliefs.
• Effective Communication: Critical thinkers can articulate their thoughts and reasoning clearly and persuasively to others. They can express complex ideas in a coherent and understandable manner.
• Continuous Learning: Critical thinking encourages a commitment to ongoing learning and intellectual growth. It involves seeking out new knowledge, refining thinking skills, and staying receptive to new information.

Definition of Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is an intellectual process of analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to make reasoned and informed decisions.

What is Critical Thinking in Nursing?

Critical thinking in nursing is a vital cognitive skill that involves analyzing, evaluating, and making reasoned decisions about patient care.

It’s an essential aspect of a nurse’s professional practice as it enables them to provide safe and effective care to patients.

Critical thinking involves a careful and deliberate thought process to gather and assess information, consider alternative solutions, and make informed decisions based on evidence and sound judgment.

This skill helps nurses to:

• Assess Information: Critical thinking allows nurses to thoroughly assess patient information, including medical history, symptoms, and test results. By analyzing this data, nurses can identify patterns, discrepancies, and potential issues that may require further investigation.
• Diagnose: Nurses use critical thinking to analyze patient data and collaboratively work with other healthcare professionals to formulate accurate nursing diagnoses. This is crucial for developing appropriate care plans that address the unique needs of each patient.
• Plan and Implement Care: Once a nursing diagnosis is established, critical thinking helps nurses develop effective care plans. They consider various interventions and treatment options, considering the patient’s preferences, medical history, and evidence-based practices.
• Evaluate Outcomes: After implementing interventions, critical thinking enables nurses to evaluate the outcomes of their actions. If the desired outcomes are not achieved, nurses can adapt their approach and make necessary changes to the care plan.
• Prioritize Care: In busy healthcare environments, nurses often face situations where they must prioritize patient care. Critical thinking helps them determine which patients require immediate attention and which interventions are most essential.
• Communicate Effectively: Critical thinking skills allow nurses to communicate clearly and confidently with patients, their families, and other members of the healthcare team. They can explain complex medical information and treatment plans in a way that is easily understood by all parties involved.
• Identify Problems: Nurses use critical thinking to identify potential complications or problems in a patient’s condition. This early recognition can lead to timely interventions and prevent further deterioration.
• Collaborate: Healthcare is a collaborative effort involving various professionals. Critical thinking enables nurses to actively participate in interdisciplinary discussions, share their insights, and contribute to holistic patient care.
• Ethical Decision-Making: Critical thinking helps nurses navigate ethical dilemmas that can arise in patient care. They can analyze different perspectives, consider ethical principles, and make morally sound decisions.
• Continual Learning: Critical thinking encourages nurses to seek out new knowledge, stay up-to-date with the latest research and medical advancements, and incorporate evidence-based practices into their care.

In summary, critical thinking is an integral skill for nurses, allowing them to provide high-quality, patient-centered care by analyzing information, making informed decisions, and adapting their approaches as needed.

It’s a dynamic process that enhances clinical reasoning , problem-solving, and overall patient outcomes.

What are the Levels of Critical Thinking in Nursing?

The development of critical thinking in nursing practice involves progressing through three levels: basic, complex, and commitment.

The Kataoka-Yahiro and Saylor model outlines this progression.

1. Basic Critical Thinking:

At this level, learners trust experts for solutions. Thinking is based on rules and principles. For instance, nursing students may strictly follow a procedure manual without personalization, as they lack experience. Answers are seen as right or wrong, and the opinions of experts are accepted.

2. Complex Critical Thinking:

Learners start to analyze choices independently and think creatively. They recognize conflicting solutions and weigh benefits and risks. Thinking becomes innovative, with a willingness to consider various approaches in complex situations.

3. Commitment:

At this level, individuals anticipate decision points without external help and take responsibility for their choices. They choose actions or beliefs based on available alternatives, considering consequences and accountability.

As nurses gain knowledge and experience, their critical thinking evolves from relying on experts to independent analysis and decision-making, ultimately leading to committed and accountable choices in patient care.

Why Critical Thinking is Important in Nursing?

Critical thinking is important in nursing for several crucial reasons:

Patient Safety:

Nursing decisions directly impact patient well-being. Critical thinking helps nurses identify potential risks, make informed choices, and prevent errors.

Clinical Judgment:

Nursing decisions often involve evaluating information from various sources, such as patient history, lab results, and medical literature.

Critical thinking assists nurses in critically appraising this information, distinguishing credible sources, and making rational judgments that align with evidence-based practices.

Enhances Decision-Making:

In nursing, critical thinking allows nurses to gather relevant patient information, assess it objectively, and weigh different options based on evidence and analysis.

This process empowers them to make informed decisions about patient care, treatment plans, and interventions, ultimately leading to better outcomes.

Promotes Problem-Solving:

Nurses encounter complex patient issues that require effective problem-solving.

Critical thinking equips them to break down problems into manageable parts, analyze root causes, and explore creative solutions that consider the unique needs of each patient.

Drives Creativity:

Nursing care is not always straightforward. Critical thinking encourages nurses to think creatively and explore innovative approaches to challenges, especially when standard protocols might not suffice for unique patient situations.

Fosters Effective Communication:

Communication is central to nursing. Critical thinking enables nurses to clearly express their thoughts, provide logical explanations for their decisions, and engage in meaningful dialogues with patients, families, and other healthcare professionals.

Aids Learning:

Nursing is a field of continuous learning. Critical thinking encourages nurses to engage in ongoing self-directed education, seeking out new knowledge, embracing new techniques, and staying current with the latest research and developments.

Improves Relationships:

Open-mindedness and empathy are essential in nursing relationships.

Critical thinking encourages nurses to consider diverse viewpoints, understand patients’ perspectives, and communicate compassionately, leading to stronger therapeutic relationships.

Empowers Independence:

Nursing often requires autonomous decision-making. Critical thinking empowers nurses to analyze situations independently, make judgments without undue influence, and take responsibility for their actions.

Facilitates Adaptability:

Healthcare environments are ever-changing. Critical thinking equips nurses with the ability to quickly assess new information, adjust care plans, and navigate unexpected situations while maintaining patient safety and well-being.

Strengthens Critical Analysis:

In the era of vast information, nurses must discern reliable data from misinformation.

Critical thinking helps them scrutinize sources, question assumptions, and make well-founded choices based on credible information.

How to Apply Critical Thinking in Nursing? (With Examples)

Here are some examples of how nurses can apply critical thinking.

Assess Patient Data:

Critical Thinking Action: Carefully review patient history, symptoms, and test results.

Example: A nurse notices a change in a diabetic patient’s blood sugar levels. Instead of just administering insulin, the nurse considers recent dietary changes, activity levels, and possible medication interactions before adjusting the treatment plan.

Diagnose Patient Needs:

Critical Thinking Action: Analyze patient data to identify potential nursing diagnoses.

Example: After reviewing a patient’s lab results, vital signs, and observations, a nurse identifies “ Risk for Impaired Skin Integrity ” due to the patient’s limited mobility.

Plan and Implement Care:

Critical Thinking Action: Develop a care plan based on patient needs and evidence-based practices.

Example: For a patient at risk of falls, the nurse plans interventions such as hourly rounding, non-slip footwear, and bed alarms to ensure patient safety.

Evaluate Interventions:

Critical Thinking Action: Assess the effectiveness of interventions and modify the care plan as needed.

Example: After administering pain medication, the nurse evaluates its impact on the patient’s comfort level and considers adjusting the dosage or trying an alternative pain management approach.

Prioritize Care:

Critical Thinking Action: Determine the order of interventions based on patient acuity and needs.

Example: In a busy emergency department, the nurse triages patients by considering the severity of their conditions, ensuring that critical cases receive immediate attention.

Collaborate with the Healthcare Team:

Critical Thinking Action: Participate in interdisciplinary discussions and share insights.

Example: During rounds, a nurse provides input on a patient’s response to treatment, which prompts the team to adjust the care plan for better outcomes.

Ethical Decision-Making:

Critical Thinking Action: Analyze ethical dilemmas and make morally sound choices.

Example: When a terminally ill patient expresses a desire to stop treatment, the nurse engages in ethical discussions, respecting the patient’s autonomy and ensuring proper end-of-life care.

Patient Education:

Critical Thinking Action: Tailor patient education to individual needs and comprehension levels.

Example: A nurse uses visual aids and simplified language to explain medication administration to a patient with limited literacy skills.

Adapt to Changes:

Critical Thinking Action: Quickly adjust care plans when patient conditions change.

Example: During post-operative recovery, a nurse notices signs of infection and promptly informs the healthcare team to initiate appropriate treatment adjustments.

Critical Analysis of Information:

Critical Thinking Action: Evaluate information sources for reliability and relevance.

Example: When presented with conflicting research studies, a nurse critically examines the methodologies and sample sizes to determine which study is more credible.

Making Sense of Critical Thinking Skills

What is the purpose of critical thinking in nursing.

The purpose of critical thinking in nursing is to enable nurses to effectively analyze, interpret, and evaluate patient information, make informed clinical judgments, develop appropriate care plans, prioritize interventions, and adapt their approaches as needed, thereby ensuring safe, evidence-based, and patient-centered care.

Why critical thinking is important in nursing?

Critical thinking is important in nursing because it promotes safe decision-making, accurate clinical judgment, problem-solving, evidence-based practice, holistic patient care, ethical reasoning, collaboration, and adapting to dynamic healthcare environments.

Critical thinking skill also enhances patient safety, improves outcomes, and supports nurses’ professional growth.

How is critical thinking used in the nursing process?

Critical thinking is integral to the nursing process as it guides nurses through the systematic approach of assessing, diagnosing, planning, implementing, and evaluating patient care. It involves:

• Assessment: Critical thinking enables nurses to gather and interpret patient data accurately, recognizing relevant patterns and cues.
• Diagnosis: Nurses use critical thinking to analyze patient data, identify nursing diagnoses, and differentiate actual issues from potential complications.
• Planning: Critical thinking helps nurses develop tailored care plans, selecting appropriate interventions based on patient needs and evidence.
• Implementation: Nurses make informed decisions during interventions, considering patient responses and adjusting plans as needed.
• Evaluation: Critical thinking supports the assessment of patient outcomes, determining the effectiveness of intervention, and adapting care accordingly.

Throughout the nursing process , critical thinking ensures comprehensive, patient-centered care and fosters continuous improvement in clinical judgment and decision-making.

What is an example of the critical thinking attitude of independent thinking in nursing practice?

An example of the critical thinking attitude of independent thinking in nursing practice could be:

A nurse is caring for a patient with a complex medical history who is experiencing a new set of symptoms. The nurse carefully reviews the patient’s history, recent test results, and medication list.

While discussing the case with the healthcare team, the nurse realizes that the current treatment plan might not be addressing all aspects of the patient’s condition.

Instead of simply following the established protocol, the nurse independently considers alternative approaches based on their assessment.

The nurse proposes a modification to the treatment plan, citing the rationale and evidence supporting the change.

This demonstrates independent thinking by critically evaluating the situation, challenging assumptions, and advocating for a more personalized and effective patient care approach.

How to use Costa’s level of questioning for critical thinking in nursing?

Costa’s levels of questioning can be applied in nursing to facilitate critical thinking and stimulate a deeper understanding of patient situations. The levels of questioning are as follows:

• 15 Attitudes of Critical Thinking in Nursing (Explained W/ Examples)
• Nursing Concept Map (FREE Template)
• Clinical Reasoning In Nursing (Explained W/ Example)
• 8 Stages Of The Clinical Reasoning Cycle
• How To Improve Critical Thinking Skills In Nursing? 24 Strategies With Examples
• What is the “5 Whys” Technique?
• What Are Socratic Questions?

Critical thinking in nursing is the foundation that underpins safe, effective, and patient-centered care.

Critical thinking skills empower nurses to navigate the complexities of their profession while consistently providing high-quality care to diverse patient populations.

Reading Recommendation

Potter, P.A., Perry, A.G., Stockert, P. and Hall, A. (2013) Fundamentals of Nursing

Comments are closed.

Medical & Legal Disclaimer

All the contents on this site are for entertainment, informational, educational, and example purposes ONLY. These contents are not intended to be used as a substitute for professional medical advice or practice guidelines. However, we aim to publish precise and current information. By using any content on this website, you agree never to hold us legally liable for damages, harm, loss, or misinformation. Read the  privacy policy  and  terms and conditions.

Privacy Policy

Terms & Conditions

© 2024 nurseship.com. All rights reserved.

This website is intended for healthcare professionals

• { $refs.search.focus(); })" aria-controls="searchpanel" :aria-expanded="open" class="hidden lg:inline-flex justify-end text-gray-800 hover:text-primary py-2 px-4 lg:px-0 items-center text-base font-medium"> Search

Search menu

Critical thinking: what it is and why it counts. 2020. https://tinyurl.com/ybz73bnx (accessed 27 April 2021)

Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine. Curriculum for training for advanced critical care practitioners: syllabus (part III). version 1.1. 2018. https://www.ficm.ac.uk/accps/curriculum (accessed 27 April 2021)

Guerrero AP. Mechanistic case diagramming: a tool for problem-based learning. Acad Med.. 2001; 76:(4)385-9 https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200104000-00020

Harasym PH, Tsai TC, Hemmati P. Current trends in developing medical students' critical thinking abilities. Kaohsiung J Med Sci.. 2008; 24:(7)341-55 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(08)70131-1

Hayes MM, Chatterjee S, Schwartzstein RM. Critical thinking in critical care: five strategies to improve teaching and learning in the intensive care unit. Ann Am Thorac Soc.. 2017; 14:(4)569-575 https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201612-1009AS

Health Education England. Multi-professional framework for advanced clinical practice in England. 2017. https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/multi-professionalframeworkforadvancedclinicalpracticeinengland.pdf (accessed 27 April 2021)

Health Education England, NHS England/NHS Improvement, Skills for Health. Core capabilities framework for advanced clinical practice (nurses) working in general practice/primary care in England. 2020. https://www.skillsforhealth.org.uk/images/services/cstf/ACP%20Primary%20Care%20Nurse%20Fwk%202020.pdf (accessed 27 April 2021)

Health Education England. Advanced practice mental health curriculum and capabilities framework. 2020. https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/AP-MH%20Curriculum%20and%20Capabilities%20Framework%201.2.pdf (accessed 27 April 2021)

Jacob E, Duffield C, Jacob D. A protocol for the development of a critical thinking assessment tool for nurses using a Delphi technique. J Adv Nurs.. 2017; 73:(8)1982-1988 https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13306

Kohn MA. Understanding evidence-based diagnosis. Diagnosis (Berl).. 2014; 1:(1)39-42 https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2013-0003

Clinical reasoning—a guide to improving teaching and practice. 2012. https://www.racgp.org.au/afp/201201/45593

McGee S. Evidence-based physical diagnosis, 4th edn. Philadelphia PA: Elsevier; 2018

Norman GR, Monteiro SD, Sherbino J, Ilgen JS, Schmidt HG, Mamede S. The causes of errors in clinical reasoning: cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, and dual process thinking. Acad Med.. 2017; 92:(1)23-30 https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001421

Papp KK, Huang GC, Lauzon Clabo LM Milestones of critical thinking: a developmental model for medicine and nursing. Acad Med.. 2014; 89:(5)715-20 https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000220

Rencic J, Lambert WT, Schuwirth L., Durning SJ. Clinical reasoning performance assessment: using situated cognition theory as a conceptual framework. Diagnosis.. 2020; 7:(3)177-179 https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2019-0051

Examining critical thinking skills in family medicine residents. 2016. https://www.stfm.org/FamilyMedicine/Vol48Issue2/Ross121

Royal College of Emergency Medicine. Emergency care advanced clinical practitioner—curriculum and assessment, adult and paediatric. version 2.0. 2019. https://tinyurl.com/eps3p37r (accessed 27 April 2021)

Young ME, Thomas A, Lubarsky S. Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ.. 2020; 20 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02012-9

Advanced practice: critical thinking and clinical reasoning

Sadie Diamond-Fox

Senior Lecturer in Advanced Critical Care Practice, Northumbria University, Advanced Critical Care Practitioner, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and Co-Lead, Advanced Critical/Clinical Care Practitioners Academic Network (ACCPAN)

View articles

Advanced Critical Care Practitioner, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Clinical reasoning is a multi-faceted and complex construct, the understanding of which has emerged from multiple fields outside of healthcare literature, primarily the psychological and behavioural sciences. The application of clinical reasoning is central to the advanced non-medical practitioner (ANMP) role, as complex patient caseloads with undifferentiated and undiagnosed diseases are now a regular feature in healthcare practice. This article explores some of the key concepts and terminology that have evolved over the last four decades and have led to our modern day understanding of this topic. It also considers how clinical reasoning is vital for improving evidence-based diagnosis and subsequent effective care planning. A comprehensive guide to applying diagnostic reasoning on a body systems basis will be explored later in this series.

The Multi-professional Framework for Advanced Clinical Practice highlights clinical reasoning as one of the core clinical capabilities for advanced clinical practice in England ( Health Education England (HEE), 2017 ). This is also identified in other specialist core capability frameworks and training syllabuses for advanced clinical practitioner (ACP) roles ( Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine, 2018 ; Royal College of Emergency Medicine, 2019 ; HEE, 2020 ; HEE et al, 2020 ).

Rencic et al (2020) defined clinical reasoning as ‘a complex ability, requiring both declarative and procedural knowledge, such as physical examination and communication skills’. A plethora of literature exists surrounding this topic, with a recent systematic review identifying 625 papers, spanning 47 years, across the health professions ( Young et al, 2020 ). A diverse range of terms are used to refer to clinical reasoning within the healthcare literature ( Table 1 ), which can make defining their influence on their use within the clinical practice and educational arenas somewhat challenging.

The concept of clinical reasoning has changed dramatically over the past four decades. What was once thought to be a process-dependent task is now considered to present a more dynamic state of practice, which is affected by ‘complex, non-linear interactions between the clinician, patient, and the environment’ ( Rencic et al, 2020 ).

Cognitive and meta-cognitive processes

As detailed in the table, multiple themes surrounding the cognitive and meta-cognitive processes that underpin clinical reasoning have been identified. Central to these processes is the practice of critical thinking. Much like the definition of clinical reasoning, there is also diversity with regard to definitions and conceptualisation of critical thinking in the healthcare setting. Facione (2020) described critical thinking as ‘purposeful reflective judgement’ that consists of six discrete cognitive skills: analysis, inference, interpretation, explanation, synthesis and self–regulation. Ross et al (2016) identified that critical thinking positively correlates with academic success, professionalism, clinical decision-making, wider reasoning and problem-solving capabilities. Jacob et al (2017) also identified that patient outcomes and safety are directly linked to critical thinking skills.

Harasym et al (2008) listed nine discrete cognitive steps that may be applied to the process of critical thinking, which integrates both cognitive and meta-cognitive processes:

• Gather relevant information
• Formulate clearly defined questions and problems
• Evaluate relevant information
• Utilise and interpret abstract ideas effectively
• Infer well-reasoned conclusions and solutions
• Pilot outcomes against relevant criteria and standards
• Use alternative thought processes if needed
• Consider all assumptions, implications, and practical consequences
• Communicate effectively with others to solve complex problems.

There are a number of widely used strategies to develop critical thinking and evidence-based diagnosis. These include simulated problem-based learning platforms, high-fidelity simulation scenarios, case-based discussion forums, reflective journals as part of continuing professional development (CPD) portfolios and journal clubs.

Dual process theory and cognitive bias in diagnostic reasoning

A lack of understanding of the interrelationship between critical thinking and clinical reasoning can result in cognitive bias, which can in turn lead to diagnostic errors ( Hayes et al, 2017 ). Embedded within our understanding of how diagnostic errors occur is dual process theory—system 1 and system 2 thinking. The characteristics of these are described in Table 2 . Although much of the literature in this area regards dual process theory as a valid representation of clinical reasoning, the exact causes of diagnostic errors remain unclear and require further research ( Norman et al, 2017 ). The most effective way in which to teach critical thinking skills in healthcare education also remains unclear; however, Hayes et al (2017) proposed five strategies, based on well-known educational theory and principles, that they have found to be effective for teaching and learning critical thinking within the ‘high-octane’ and ‘high-stakes’ environment of the intensive care unit ( Table 3 ). This is arguably a setting that does not always present an ideal environment for learning given its fast pace and constant sensory stimulation. However, it may be argued that if a model has proven to be effective in this setting, it could be extrapolated to other busy clinical environments and may even provide a useful aide memoire for self-assessment and reflective practices.

Integrating the clinical reasoning process into the clinical consultation

Linn et al (2012) described the clinical consultation as ‘the practical embodiment of the clinical reasoning process by which data are gathered, considered, challenged and integrated to form a diagnosis that can lead to appropriate management’. The application of the previously mentioned psychological and behavioural science theories is intertwined throughout the clinical consultation via the following discrete processes:

• The clinical history generates an initial hypothesis regarding diagnosis, and said hypothesis is then tested through skilled and specific questioning
• The clinician formulates a primary diagnosis and differential diagnoses in order of likelihood
• Physical examination is carried out, aimed at gathering further data necessary to confirm or refute the hypotheses
• A selection of appropriate investigations, using an evidence-based approach, may be ordered to gather additional data
• The clinician (in partnership with the patient) then implements a targeted and rationalised management plan, based on best-available clinical evidence.

Linn et al (2012) also provided a very useful framework of how the above methods can be applied when teaching consultation with a focus on clinical reasoning (see Table 4 ). This framework may also prove useful to those new to the process of undertaking the clinical consultation process.

Evidence-based diagnosis and diagnostic accuracy

The principles of clinical reasoning are embedded within the practices of formulating an evidence-based diagnosis (EBD). According to Kohn (2014) EBD quantifies the probability of the presence of a disease through the use of diagnostic tests. He described three pertinent questions to consider in this respect:

• ‘How likely is the patient to have a particular disease?’
• ‘How good is this test for the disease in question?’
• ‘Is the test worth performing to guide treatment?’

EBD gives a statistical discriminatory weighting to update the probability of a disease to either support or refute the working and differential diagnoses, which can then determine the appropriate course of further diagnostic testing and treatments.

Diagnostic accuracy refers to how positive or negative findings change the probability of the presence of disease. In order to understand diagnostic accuracy, we must begin to understand the underlying principles and related statistical calculations concerning sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and likelihood ratios.

The construction of a two-by-two square (2 x 2) table ( Figure 1 ) allows the calculation of several statistical weightings for pertinent points of the history-taking exercise, a finding/sign on physical examination, or a test result. From this construct we can then determine the aforementioned statistical calculations as follows ( McGee, 2018 ):

• Sensitivity , the proportion of patients with the diagnosis who have the physical sign or a positive test result = A ÷ (A + C)
• Specificity , the proportion of patients without the diagnosis who lack the physical sign or have a negative test result = D ÷ (B + D)
• Positive predictive value , the proportion of patients with disease who have a physical sign divided by the proportion of patients without disease who also have the same sign = A ÷ (A + B)
• Negative predictive value , proportion of patients with disease lacking a physical sign divided by the proportion of patients without disease also lacking the sign = D ÷ (C + D)
• Likelihood ratio , a finding/sign/test results sensitivity divided by the false-positive rate. A test of no value has an LR of 1. Therefore the test would have no impact upon the patient's odds of disease
• Positive likelihood ratio = proportion of patients with disease who have a positive finding/sign/test, divided by proportion of patients without disease who have a positive finding/sign/test OR (A ÷ N1) ÷ (B÷ N2), or sensitivity ÷ (1 – specificity) The more positive an LR (the further above 1), the more the finding/sign/test result raises a patient's probability of disease. Thresholds of ≥ 4 are often considered to be significant when focusing a clinician's interest on the most pertinent positive findings, clinical signs or tests
• Negative likelihood ratio = proportion of patients with disease who have a negative finding/sign/test result, divided by the proportion of patients without disease who have a positive finding/sign/test OR (C ÷ N1) ÷ (D÷N1) or (1 – sensitivity) ÷ specificity The more negative an LR (the closer to 0), the more the finding/sign/test result lowers a patient's probability of disease. Thresholds <0.4 are often considered to be significant when focusing clinician's interest on the most pertinent negative findings, clinical signs or tests.

There are various online statistical calculators that can aid in the above calculations, such as the BMJ Best Practice statistical calculators, which may used as a guide (https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/toolkit/ebm-toolbox/statistics-calculators/).

Clinical scoring systems

Evidence-based literature supports the practice of determining clinical pretest probability of certain diseases prior to proceeding with a diagnostic test. There are numerous validated pretest clinical scoring systems and clinical prediction tools that can be used in this context and accessed via various online platforms such as MDCalc (https://www.mdcalc.com/#all). Such clinical prediction tools include:

• 4Ts score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia
• ABCD² score for transient ischaemic attack (TIA)
• CHADS₂ score for atrial fibrillation stroke risk
• Aortic Dissection Detection Risk Score (ADD-RS).

Conclusions

Critical thinking and clinical reasoning are fundamental skills of the advanced non-medical practitioner (ANMP) role. They are complex processes and require an array of underpinning knowledge of not only the clinical sciences, but also psychological and behavioural science theories. There are multiple constructs to guide these processes, not all of which will be suitable for the vast array of specialist areas in which ANMPs practice. There are multiple opportunities throughout the clinical consultation process in which ANMPs can employ the principles of critical thinking and clinical reasoning in order to improve patient outcomes. There are also multiple online toolkits that may be used to guide the ANMP in this complex process.

• Much like consultation and clinical assessment, the process of the application of clinical reasoning was once seen as solely the duty of a doctor, however the advanced non-medical practitioner (ANMP) role crosses those traditional boundaries
• Critical thinking and clinical reasoning are fundamental skills of the ANMP role
• The processes underlying clinical reasoning are complex and require an array of underpinning knowledge of not only the clinical sciences, but also psychological and behavioural science theories
• Through the use of the principles underlying critical thinking and clinical reasoning, there is potential to make a significant contribution to diagnostic accuracy, treatment options and overall patient outcomes

CPD reflective questions

• What assessment instruments exist for the measurement of cognitive bias?
• Think of an example of when cognitive bias may have impacted on your own clinical reasoning and decision making
• What resources exist to aid you in developing into the ‘advanced critical thinker’?
• What resources exist to aid you in understanding the statistical terminology surrounding evidence-based diagnosis?

Constructing critical thinking in health professional education

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 04 April 2018
• Volume 7 , pages 156–165, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Renate Kahlke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4473-5039 1 &
• Kevin Eva 1  

8816 Accesses

31 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Introduction

Calls for enabling ‘critical thinking’ are ubiquitous in health professional education. However, there is little agreement in the literature or in practice as to what this term means and efforts to generate a universal definition have found limited traction. Moreover, the variability observed might suggest that multiplicity has value that the quest for universal definitions has failed to capture. In this study, we sought to map the multiple conceptions of critical thinking in circulation in health professional education to understand the relationships and tensions between them.

We used an inductive, qualitative approach to explore conceptions of critical thinking with educators from four health professions: medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work. Four participants from each profession participated in two individual in-depth semi-structured interviews, the latter of which induced reflection on a visual depiction of results generated from the first set of interviews.

Three main conceptions of critical thinking were identified: biomedical, humanist, and social justice-oriented critical thinking. ‘Biomedical critical thinking’ was the dominant conception. While each conception had distinct features, the particular conceptions of critical thinking espoused by individual participants were not stable within or between interviews.

Multiple conceptions of critical thinking likely offer educators the ability to express diverse beliefs about what ‘good thinking’ means in variable contexts. The findings suggest that any single definition of critical thinking in the health professions will be inherently contentious and, we argue, should be. Such debates, when made visible to educators and trainees, can be highly productive.

Similar content being viewed by others

Clear skies ahead: optimizing the learning environment for critical thinking from a qualitative analysis of interviews with expert teachers

Using critical consciousness to inform health professions education.

Understandings and practices: Towards socially responsive curricula for the health professions

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

What this paper adds

‘Critical thinking’ is a term commonly used across health professional education, though there is little agreement on what this means in the literature or in practice. We depart from previous work, which most often attempts to create a common definition. Instead, we offer a description of the different conceptions of critical thinking held in health professional education, illustrate their dynamic use, and discuss the tensions and affordances that this diversity brings to the field. We argue that diversity in conceptions of critical thinking can allow educators to express unique and often divergent beliefs about what ‘good thinking’ means in their contexts.

Even though the term critical thinking is ubiquitous in educational settings, there is significant disagreement about what it means to ‘think critically’ [ 1 ]. Predominantly, authors have attempted to develop consensus definitions of critical thinking that would finally put these disagreements to rest (e. g. [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]). They define critical thinking variously, but tend to focus on a rational process involving (for example) ‘interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation’ [ 2 ]. Other authors have challenged this perspective by arguing that critical thinking is a more subjective process, emphasizing the role of emotion and relationships [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. In the tradition of critical pedagogy, critical thinking has meant critiquing ideology [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. Last, still others have argued that critical thinking is discipline or subject-specific, meaning that critical thinking is not universal, but does have a relatively stable meaning within different disciplines [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. However, none of these attempts to clarify the ambiguity that surrounds critical thinking have led to agreement, suggesting that each of these perspectives offers, at best, a partial explanation for the persistence of disagreements.

This is problematic in health professional education (HPE) because professional programs are mandated to educate practitioners who have a defined knowledge base and skill set. When curriculum designers, educators, researchers, or policy-makers all agree that we should teach future professionals to ‘think critically’, resting on the assumption that they also agree on what that means, they may find themselves working at cross-purposes. Moreover, the focus on a stable meaning for critical thinking, whether within a discipline or across disciplines, cannot account for the potential value of the multiplicity of definitions that exist. That is, the availability of diverse conceptions of critical thinking likely enables educators to express diverse elements of and beliefs about their work, thereby suggesting a need to explore the conceptions of critical thinking held in HPE, and the contexts that inform those conceptions.

With the historical focus on developing broad definitions of critical thinking and delineating its component skills and dispositions, little has been done either to document the diverse conceptions of this term in circulation amongst active HPE practitioners or, perhaps more importantly, to illuminate the beliefs about what constitutes ‘good thinking’ that lie behind them and the relationships between them. Perhaps clarity in our understanding of critical thinking lies in the flexibility with which it is conceptualized. This study moves away from attempting to create universal definitions of critical thinking in order to explore the tensions that surround different, converging, and competing beliefs about what critical thinking means.

In doing so, we map out conceptions of critical thinking across four health professions along with the beliefs about professional practice that underpin those conceptions. Some of these beliefs may be tied to a profession’s socialization processes and many will be tied to beliefs about ‘good thinking’ that are shared across professions, since health professionals work within shared systems [ 19 ] toward the same ultimate task of providing patient care. It is the variety of ways in which critical thinking is considered by practitioners on the whole that we wanted to understand, not the formal pronouncements of what might be listed as competencies or components of critical thinking within any one profession.

Hence, with this study, we sought to ask:

How do educators in the health professions understand critical thinking?

What values or beliefs inform that understanding?

To explore these questions, we adopted a qualitative research approach that focuses on how people interpret and make meaning out of their experiences and actively construct their social worlds [ 20 ].

This study uses an emergent, inductive design in an effort to be responsive to the co-construction of new and unexpected meaning between participants and researchers. While techniques derived from constructivist grounded theory [ 21 ] were employed, methods like extensive theoretical sampling (that are common to that methodology) were not maintained because this study was intended to be broadly exploratory. This ‘borrowing’ of techniques offers the ability to capitalize on the open and broad approach offered by interpretive qualitative methodology [ 20 ] while engaging selectively with the more specific tools and techniques available from constructivist grounded theory [ 22 , 23 ].

The first author has a background in sociocultural and critical theory. Data collection and early analyses were carried out as part of her dissertation in Educational Policy Studies. As a result of her background in critical theory, there was a need for reflexivity focused on limiting predisposition toward participant interpretations of critical thinking that aligned with critical theory. The senior author was trained in cognitive psychology, and contributed to the questioning of results and discussion required to ensure this reflexivity. The first author’s dissertation supervisor also provided support in this way by questioning assumptions made during the initial stages of this work.

Participants were recruited through faculty or departmental listservs for educators. Senior administrators were consulted to ensure that they were aware of and comfortable with this research taking place in their unit. In some cases, administrators identified a few key individuals who were particularly interested in education. These educators were contacted directly by the first author to request participation.

The purposive sample includes four educators from each of four diverse health professional programs ( n  = 16 in total): medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work. All participants self-identified as being actively involved in teaching in their professional program and all were formally affiliated with either the University of Alberta (Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy) or the University of Calgary (Social Work). These four professions were selected to maximize diversity in approaches to critical thinking given that these professions have diverse perspectives and roles with respect to patient care. However, participants all worked in Alberta, Canada, within the same broad postsecondary education and healthcare contexts.

In addition, sampling priority was given to recruiting participants practising in a diverse range of specialties: primary care, geriatrics, paediatrics, mental health, critical care, and various consulting specialties. Specific specialties within each profession are not provided here in an effort to preserve participant anonymity. The goal was not to make conclusions about the perspective of any one group; rather, diversity in profession, practice context, gender, and years in practice was sought to increase the likelihood of illuminating diverse conceptions of critical thinking.

Data generation

Participants were invited to participate in two in-person semi-structured interviews conducted by the first author. All but one participant completed both interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and interview guides are included in the online Electronic Supplementary Material. The first was about 1 hour in length and discussed how participants think about critical thinking in their teaching, professional practice, and other contexts. Participants were invited to bring a teaching artefact that represented how they teach critical thinking to the interview. Artefacts were used as a visual elicitation strategy to prompt discussion from a new angle [ 24 ]. Questions focused on what the participant thought about teaching critical thinking using the artefact and how they identified critical thinking (or lack thereof) in their students. Artefacts were not analyzed independently of the discussion they produced [ 25 ].

Interview 1 data were analyzed to produce a visual depiction of the aggregate terms, ideas, and relationships described by participants. The visual depiction took the form of a ‘mind map’ (see Appendix C of the Electronic Supplementary Material) that was generated using MindMup free online software [ 26 ]. In developing the mind map, we sought descriptions of participants’ views that remained as close to the data as possible, limiting interpretations and inferences. The ‘clusters’ that appear in the mind map (e. g., the cluster around ‘characteristics of the critical thinker’) represent relationships or categories commonly described when participants discussed those terms. Terms were not weighted or emphasized based on frequency of use (through font size or bolding) in an effort to allow individual participants to emphasize or deemphasize terms as they thought appropriate during the second interview.

Where there was no clear category or relationship, terms were left at the first level of the mind map, connected directly to ‘critical thinking’ at the centre. Including more connections and inferences would likely have improved the readability of the map for participants; however, we chose to include connections and exact language used by participants (even in cases where terms seemed similar) as often as possible, in an effort to limit researcher interpretation. That said, any attempt to aggregate data or to represent relationships is an act of interpretation and some inferences were made in the process, such as the distinction between descriptions about ‘characteristics’ of the critical thinker (the top left hand corner of the map) and ‘processes’ such as ‘reasoning’ or ‘examining assumptions’ (on the right side of the map). The second interview lasted approximately 45 minutes during which a visual elicitation approach invited participants to respond to the mind map.

Visual elicitation involves employing visual stimuli to generate verbal interview data. Participant-generated mind maps are often used in qualitative data collection [ 27 ], but the literature on using researcher-generated diagrams for visual elicitation is relatively thin [ 25 , 28 ]. In this study, using a researcher-generated mind map for visual elicitation offered several advantages. First, as with other forms of visual elicitation, diagrams of this kind can help participants develop candid responses and avoid rehearsed narratives [ 24 , 29 ]. For example, we used mind maps as one mechanism to reduce the tendency for participants who were familiar with the literature on critical thinking to get stuck on narrating seemingly rehearsed definitions of critical thinking. Second, we chose to use a mind map because it provided a social setting through which participants could react to language generated by others. Doing so does not allow the same degree of social negotiation inherent in focus groups, but it avoids the difficulty involved in attempts to disentangle individual from group views [ 30 ]. Third, the visual elicitation method was chosen because it offered a form of member check [ 31 ] that allowed researchers to understand the evolving nature of participants’ conceptions of critical thinking, rather than assuming that participants offer a single true conception during each and every discussion [ 32 ]. In other words, the mind map was used to prompt participants to elaborate their conception of critical thinking and locate it relative to other participants.

In interview 2, participants were asked to begin by discussing areas or terms on the mind map that resonated most with their own conception of critical thinking; they were then asked to discuss terms or concepts on the map that resonated less or with which they disagreed. They were also asked to comment on how relationships between ideas were represented through the map so that researchers could get a sense of the extent to which the relationships between the concepts depicted reflected the participants’ understanding of those relationships [ 28 ]. Participants were encouraged to disagree with portions of the map and most did actively disagree with some of the terms and relationships depicted, suggesting that the map did not come to dictate more than elicit individual interpretations [ 28 ]. Although participants were encouraged to ‘mark up’ the mind map, and the ‘marked up’ mind maps were treated as data, the primary data sources for this study were the audio-recorded interviews [ 25 ].

Participants were aware that the mind map represented aggregate data from the four health professions in the study, but were not initially told whether any of the responses came predominantly from any one profession; they did not generally seem to be attempting to associate terms with other professions. Nonetheless, interview 2 data are a mix of participants’ reactions to the ideas of others and their elaborations of their own understandings. Naturally, these data build on data generated in interview 1, and represent reactions to both the researcher interpretation of the data and to the conceptions of critical thinking offered by others. Interview 1 data tended to offer an initial, open impression of how participants think about critical thinking in their contexts. Because of these different approaches to data generation, quotes from interview 1 and 2 are labelled as ‘INT1’ or ‘INT2’, respectively.

Data analysis

Data were coded through an iterative cycle of initial and focused coding [ 33 ] with NVivo software. Initial line-by-line coding was used to develop codes that were close to the data, involving minimal abstraction. Initial codes were reviewed by the first author and dissertation supervisor to abstract categories (conceptions of critical thinking), sub-categories (features of those conceptions), and themes related to the relationships between those categories. Focused coding involved taking these categories and testing them against the data using constant comparison techniques derived from constructivist grounded theory [ 21 ]. Category development continued during the framing of this paper, and authors engaged in ongoing conversations to modify categories to better fit the data. In this process, we returned to the data to look for exceptions that did not fit any category, as well as contradictions and overlap between categories.

Interpretive sufficiency [ 34 ], in this study, occurred when no new features illustrating participants’ conceptions of critical thinking were identified. Memos were kept to track the development or elimination of initial insights or impressions. Institutional ethics approval was obtained from the University of Alberta.

Participant identities have been masked to preserve anonymity. The abbreviation ‘MD’ refers to educators in medical education, ‘NURS’ to nursing, ‘PHARM’ to pharmacy, and ‘SW’ to social work. Participants within each group were then assigned a number. For example, the code NURS3 is a unique identifier for a single participant.

Three main conceptions of critical thinking were identified, each of which will be elaborated in greater detail below: biomedical critical thinking, humanist critical thinking, and social justice-oriented critical thinking. It is important to note that these categories focus on the process and purpose of critical thinking, as defined by participants. Participant comments also spoke to the ‘characteristics’ or ‘dispositions’ of critical thinkers, such as ‘open-mindedness’ or ‘creativity’. The focus of this study, however, was on uncovering what critical thinking looks like as opposed to what a ‘critical thinker’ looks like.

The results below interweave responses from different professional groups in order to emphasize the way in which each of the three core conceptions that we have identified crosses professional boundaries. We then provide a brief discussion of the relationships between these three conceptions, emphasizing the limited extent to which these conceptions were profession-specific, and the tensions that we observed between these conceptions. In general, we also interweave results from both interviews because the discussion in interview 2 tended to reinforce the themes arising from interview 1, especially with respect to indications that different conceptions were used fluidly by individuals over time and dependent on the context being discussed. The interview from which data arose is marked after each quote and we have mentioned explicitly whenever a comment was made in specific response to the mind map presented during interview 2.

In this way, our data extend the literature on critical thinking by offering an appreciation of how each of these conceptions provide educators a different way of thinking, talking, and teaching about their work in HPE. We found that even individual participants’ conceptions of critical thinking shifted from time to time. That is, they often articulated more than one understanding of critical thinking over the course of an interview or between interviews 1 and 2. Some of these conceptions were shared by multiple participants but individual constellations of beliefs about what critical thinking means were unique and somewhat idiosyncratic. Thus, while participants’ conceptions of critical thinking were both idiosyncratic and common, they were also flexible and contextual; the meaning of critical thinking was continuously reconstructed and contested. In this way, critical thinking offered a window through which to explore how beliefs about what constitutes ‘good thinking’ in a profession are challenged in educational settings.

Biomedical critical thinking

Participants articulating a biomedical approach saw critical thinking and clinical reasoning as nearly synonymous. They emphasized a process that was rational, logical, and systematic. One participant articulated that critical thinking is ‘ to be able to reason logically’ (NURS4 INT1). Another related:

You have to kind of pull together data that’s relevant to the subject you’re dealing with. You have to interpret it, you have to analyse it, and you have to come up with some type of conclusions at the end as to how you deal with it. (PHARM3 INT1)

Participants discussing this approach agreed that critical thinking involved a systematic process of gathering and analyzing data: ‘I think [critical thinking and clinical reasoning] are the same. I think clinical reasoning is basically taking the data you have on a patient and interpreting it, and offering a treatment plan’ (MD1 INT1).

In keeping with an emphasis on the rational and logical, participants espousing this view often reacted negatively when they saw references to emotion on the mind map in interview 2: ‘as soon as you bring your emotions into the room, you’re no longer applying what I think is critical thinking’ (MD4 INT2). Participants also noted that decision-making was an important component of critical thinking: ‘ you have to make a decision. I think it’s a really important part of it’ (MD2 INT2).

For participants from pharmacy, in particular, critical thinking often meant departing from ‘rules’ that guide clinical practice in order to engage in reasoning and make situationally nuanced decisions. One pharmacist, describing a student not engaging in critical thinking, related that the student asked:

‘Have you ever seen Victoza given at 2.4   milligrams daily?’ … It’s very, you know, it’s very much yes or no. But at a deeper level, it’s actually missing things. … [There are] all these other factors that change the decision, right? … On paper there might be a regular set of values for the dose, … [but] without the rest of the background, that’s a very secondary thing. (PHARM4 INT1)

This perspective was identified as the dominant conception of critical thinking because the terms and concepts falling under this broad approach were most frequently discussed by participants; moreover, when participants discussed other conceptions of critical thinking, they were often explicitly drawing contrast to the biomedical view. While the biomedical perspective was dominant in all four groups (although primarily as a contrasting case for social workers), participants tended to occupy more than one perspective over the course of an interview. They might talk primarily about biomedical critical thinking, but also explicitly modify that perspective by drawing on the other two approaches identified: humanist critical and social justice-oriented critical thinking.

Humanist critical thinking

Participants, when adopting this view, described critical thinking as directed toward social good and oriented around positive human relationships. Humanist conceptions of critical thinking were often positioned as an alternative to the dominant biomedical perspective: ‘having to think of somebody else, at their most vulnerable, makes you know that knowledge alone, science alone, won’t get that patient to the place you want the patient to be. It won’t provide the best care’ (NURS1 INT1). In being so positioned, the humanist conception of critical thinking explicitly departed from the biomedical, which emphasized ‘setting aside’ emotion and de-emphasized the role of relationships in healthcare. In the humanist perspective, participants often discussed the purpose of critical thinking as:

Thinking about something for the betterment of yourself and the betterment of others. We’re social beings as human beings. … I think [critical thinking] has a higher purpose. … But I think that [if] critical thinking … [is] a human trait that we have or hope to have, then it has to have those components of what we are as humans. (NURS1 INT1)

Another participant emphasized that: ‘a great part of critical thinking is that human element and the consideration of ultimately what’s a good thing, a common good’ (NURS2 INT1).

In addressing the relational aspects of humanist critical thinking, participants argued that the focus on ‘hard’ sources of data, such as lab tests or imaging, in biomedical critical thinking was limiting. They were concerned that ‘hard data’ tend to be perceived as more objective and thus more important in biomedical critical thinking, compared with subjective patient narratives. They argued that the patient’s story is essential to critical thinking:

I think it doesn’t matter what kind of expert you are, you have to be able to think about patients in the context that they’re in and consider what the patient has to say, and really hear them. So I think that’s an important—that was a total lack of critical thinking in a totally, ‘I’m just going to get through this next patient to the next one’ . (MD1 INT1)

Taken together, these perspectives suggest that biomedical approaches to critical thinking fail to address the complex relational and psychosocial aspects of professional practice.

Social justice-oriented critical thinking

In social justice-oriented approaches to critical thinking participants articulated a process of examining the assumptions and biases embedded in their world. They often explicitly rejected biomedical conceptions of critical thinking as ‘ reductionistic ’ (SW3 INT1) because, in their view, these approaches fail to address the thinker’s own biases. Educators taking a social justice approach felt that: ‘critical thinking … is around things like … recognizing your own bias and recognizing the bias in the world’ (SW1 INT1). In this perspective, participants saw critical thinking as a process of analyzing and addressing the ways in which individual and societal assumptions limit possible actions and access to resources for individuals and social groups.

Unlike biomedical critical thinking and similar to the humanist view, participants articulating this conception tended to make the values and goals of critical thinking, as they conceived of it, explicit. They often contrasted their articulation of values in critical thinking with the ‘assumed’ and unarticulated values present in the biomedical perspective:

If you are not orientated in a social justice position, [critical thinking is] more about the mechanics, which is valuable as well, but … if we don’t understand the values associated with what we think, it seems to not be meaningless but there’s a piece missing or it’s assumed. The values are assumed. (SW3 INT1)

When taking this perspective, participants argued that it is necessary to understand social systems in order to think critically about individual patient cases. One educator questioned:

Why are there a disproportionate number of aboriginal inpatients than any other group? … When you start critically thinking about seeing the whole patient … there are issues related with all of society and that’s why people have more diabetes. (PHARM1 INT1)

Other participants had measured responses to this approach. One participant added to their primarily biomedical approach in order to accommodate perspectives encountered in the mind map, relating that behind their diagnostic work all physicians:

Certainly see a wide spectrum of social and economic status and cultures and things and recognizing that our system is kind of biased against certain groups as it is and knowing that but really not having a good sense of knowing even where to start deconstructing it. (MD2 INT2)

Relationships between conceptions of critical thinking

Results of this study suggest that critical thinking means a variety of things in different contexts and to different people. It might be tempting to see the three approaches outlined above as playing out along professional boundaries. Certainly, the social justice-oriented conception was more common among social work educators; the humanist approach was most common among participants from nursing; perspectives held by physician educators frequently aligned with dominant biomedical conceptions. In pharmacy, educators seemed to straddle all three perspectives, though they commonly emphasized a biomedical approach. Several participants suggested that their faculty or profession has a common understanding of critical thinking: ‘ critical thinking, for me and maybe for our faculty, is around things like … ’ (SW1 INT1).

However, while the disciplinary tendencies discussed above do appear in the data, these tendencies were not stable; participants often held more than one view on what critical thinking meant simultaneously, or shifted between perspectives. Participants also articulated approaches that were not common in their profession at certain moments, positioning themselves as ‘an outlier’, or positioning their specialty as having a different perspective than the profession as a whole, such that critical thinking might mean ‘thinking like a nurse’, or ‘thinking in geriatrics’. Further, participants’ perspectives shifted depending on the context in which they imagined critical thinking occurring.

This type of positioning and re-positioning occurred in both interviews, although they were particularly pronounced in interview 2, where participants were explicitly asked to react to different viewpoints by responding to the mind map. Examples of shifting perspectives in interview 1 occurred especially when participants from medicine shifted between biomedical and humanist conceptions. These shifts suggested a persistent tension and negotiation between characterizations of critical thinking as a rational process of data collection and analysis, and a more humanist approach that accounts for emotion and the relationship between professional and patient or family. Where participants sought to extend their notion of data beyond ‘hard data’ there is a sense of blending humanism with biomedical approaches to critical thinking. In the quote below, the participant brings together a call for a humanist relationship building with a need to gather and analyze all of the data, including important data about the patient’s experience:

I have colleagues who’ll say [to their patients]: ‘just say yes or no.’ … And it’s not very good and they’re missing stuff. So, critical thinking is—I guess it’s sort of dynamic in that you have to have time and you also have to have an interaction. (MD1 INT1)

While the participants described above negotiated between biomedical and humanist perspectives, participants primarily espousing a social justice-oriented conception of critical thinking responded to the ‘assumed’ values of the biomedical model. In talking about a problem solving-oriented biomedical approach, one participant argued that ‘ it’s important as well to have that, those foundational elements of how we think about what we think, but if we don’t understand the values associated … there’s a piece missing’ (SW3 INT1). Another stated that ‘critical thinking seems to be a neutral kind of process or—no, that can’t be true, can it?’ (SW1 INT2) with the mid-sentence shift indicating that two ways of conceptualizing critical thinking had come into conflict. This participant primarily discussed a social justice-oriented conception of critical thinking, which is not neutral, but at this moment also articulated a neutral, clinical reasoning-oriented or biomedical conception.

These relatively organic moments of negotiation certainly demonstrate a sense of conflicting values, of toggling between one perspective and another. However, they also suggest that there are ways in which these contradictions can be productively sustained. In negotiating between humanist and biomedical perspectives, educators effectively modify the dominant perspective.

In interview 2, when discussing the mind map, participants often encountered views that differed from their own. They responded either by making sense of and accommodating the new perspective, or by rejecting it. As an example of the former approach, one physician reacted to the ‘social justice-oriented’ corner of the mind map (specifically ‘examining assumptions’) by explaining how there are:

Assumptions in the background that come up for me all the time in terms of the different ways people live and want to live and how we run into it all the time … it’s always in the background and actually influencing you and until someone challenges the way you approached something, you don’t know what your assumptions are. (MD1 INT2)

As an example of a participant disagreeing with a perspective encountered in the mind map, one participant rejected social justice as an important component of critical thinking in medicine. They related that critical thinking has ‘got everything to do with reasoning, which makes sense. … Social justice has nothing to do with critical thinking’ (MD4 INT2). Interestingly, this participant also spoke at length about the link between social justice and critical thinking in the first interview, suggesting that a conception might seem ‘wrong’ when an individual is thinking and talking about it in one context, and entirely ‘right’ in another context.

Such results demonstrate that individual conceptions of critical thinking are multiple and flexible, not predetermined or stable. Educators bring certain values or perspectives into the foreground as they relate to the context under discussion, while others recede into the background. Though many participants seemed to have a primary perspective, multiple perspectives on critical thinking can co-exist and are actively negotiated by the individual.

In overview, the three broad conceptions of critical thinking offered here (biomedical, humanist, and social justice-oriented) echo approaches to critical thinking found in the critical thinking literature [ 11 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. However, this study extends the literature in two key ways. First, our data point to ways in which different conceptions of critical thinking conflict and coalesce, within the field, within each profession, and even within individuals. Second, this tension offers an early empirical account of critical thinking in the health professions that suggests there may be benefits to maintaining flexibility in how one conceives of the concept.

The diverse conceptions of critical thinking identified all appear to have some value in HPE. It might be tempting to view each conception as a unique but stable perspective, reflecting thinking skills that are used within a particular context or value orientation. However, the multiplicity and flexibility of participants’ conceptions in this study offers some explanation as to why previous attempts to develop either generic (e. g. [ 2 , 3 , 5 ]) or discipline-specific [ 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 ] definitions and delineations of critical thinking have failed to stick.

Conceptions of critical thinking are not stable within a context or for a single educator. Educators’ conceptions of critical thinking shift within and between contexts as they navigate overlapping sets of values and beliefs. When educators take up different conceptions of critical thinking, the shifts they make are not just pragmatic; they actively negotiate the values and practices of the different communities in which they participate. Although we certainly saw hints of differences between professions, the strength of this study is that it captured the ways in which conceptions of critical thinking are not stably tied to any given profession. Critical thinking is connected to a broader idea of what ‘good thinking’—and, by extension, the ‘good professional’—looks like for each educator [ 38 ] within a given context or community.

These observations lead one to speculate about what purpose fluidity in conceptions of critical thinking might serve. Educators often have different values and goals for their profession, and, thus, it is not surprising that the meaning of critical thinking would be contested both within and across professions. Through their conceptions of critical thinking, participants contest ideas about what thinking is for in their profession—whether it should be focused on individual patient ‘problems’ or broader social issues, and the extent to which humanism is an important component of healthcare.

It is understandable that so much of the literature on critical thinking has sought to clarify a single ‘right’ definition; there is an argument for making a collective decision about what ‘good thinking’ means. Such a decision might offer clarity to interprofessional teaching and practice, or provide a foundation on which educational policy can be based. However, the critical thinking literature has long sought such a universal agreement and disagreements persist. Results of this study suggest a new approach, one that can account for multiple conceptions of critical thinking within and across health professions and practice contexts. The visual elicitation approach employed, asking participants to respond to the mind map, offered a unique perspective on the data that illuminated contradictions between conceptions held by individual participants, between participants, and between the conceptions themselves.

Such an approach offers a vehicle for thinking and talking about what kind of thinking is valued, both within and between professions. When conceptions of critical thinking are understood as flexible instead of stable, these acts of modification and contestation can be viewed as potential moments for critical self-reflection for individuals and for professional groups on the whole. Moreover, through their discussions of critical thinking, educators actively intervened to consider and assert what they value in their work.

These different conceptions might be complementary as often as they are incompatible. In fact, we would argue that ‘good thinking’ is inherently contentious (and should be) because it is such struggles over what ‘the good’ means in HPE that allow for challenges to the status quo. Advances at the heart of HPE and practice have been hard-won through deliberate reflection, discussion, action, and (often) conflict. For example, the ongoing movement toward relationship-oriented care has arguably occurred as a result of unexpected pushback regarding the limits of considering good healthcare as being entirely patient-centred. Thus, there is a need to bring unarticulated assumptions about important topics into the light so that the goals and values of educators and policy-makers can be openly discussed, even though they are unlikely to ever be fully resolved.

Strengths and limitations

This study offered a broad sample of educators from four different professions, who practised in a range of disciplinary contexts. Given that the sampling approach taken sought breadth rather than depth, the results explore a range of conceptions of critical thinking across HPE, rather than allowing strong claims about any one profession or context. The sample also focussed on conceptions of critical thinking within health professions education at specific institutions in Edmonton, Alberta. A multi-institutional study might build on these results to elaborate the extent to which each health profession has a core shared conception of critical thinking that translates across institutional settings. We expect that there may be significant differences between settings, given that what is meant by critical thinking seems to be highly contextual, even from moment to moment. Mapping aspects of context that impact how individuals and groups think about critical thinking would tell us much more about the values on which these conceptions are based.

Subsequent studies might also explore the extent to which conceptions of critical thinking among those identifying as ‘educators’ are comparable to those identifying as primarily ‘clinicians’. Although the boundary is definitely blurry, these groups engage in different kinds of work and participate in different communities, which we suspect may result in differences in how they conceive of critical thinking.

Conclusions

Rather than attempting to ‘solve’ the debate about what critical thinking should mean, this study maps the various conceptions of this term articulated by health professional educators. Educators took up biomedical, humanist, and social justice-oriented conceptions of critical thinking, and their conceptions often shifted from moment to moment or from context to context. The ‘mapping’ approach adopted to study this issue allowed for an appreciation of the ways in which educators actively modify and contest educational and professional values, even within their own thinking. Because critical thinking appears to be both value and context driven, arriving at a single right definition or taxonomy of critical thinking is unlikely to resolve deep tensions around what ‘good thinking’ in HPE means. Moreover, such an approach is unlikely to be productive. Such tensions produce challenges for shared understanding at the same time that they produce a productive space for discussion about core issues in HPE.

Abrami PC, Bernard RM, Borokhovski E, et al. Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: a stage 1 meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78:1102–34.

Article   Google Scholar  

Facione PA. Critical thinking: a statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae: California Academic Press; 1990.

Google Scholar  

Black B. Critical thinking—a definition and taxonomy for Cambridge Assessment: supporting validity arguments about critical thinking assessments administered by Cambridge Assessment. 34 th IAEA Annual Conference; 09.9.2008; Cambridge; 2008.

Fischer SC, Spiker VA, Riedel SL. Critical thinking training for army officers volume two: a model of critical thinking. Arlington: US Army Research Institute; 2009.

Ennis RH. Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. In: Davies M, Barnett R, editors. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2015. pp. 31–47.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Thayer-Bacon B. Transforming critical thinking: thinking constructively. New York: Teachers College Press; 2000.

Thayer-Bacon B. Caring and its relationship to critical thinking. Educ Theory. 1993;43:323–40.

Walters KS. Critical thinking, rationality, and the vulcanization of students. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. 61–80.

Warren KJ. Critical thinking and feminism. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. 199–204.

Brookfield SD. Speaking truth to power: teaching critical thinking in the critical theory tradition. In: Davies M, Barnett R, editors. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2015. pp. 529–43.

McLaren PL. Forward: critical thinking as a political project. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. ix–xv.

Giroux H. Toward a pedagogy of critical thinking. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. 199–204.

McPeck JE. Critical thinking and the ‘Trivial Pursuit’ theory of knowledge. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. 101–18.

Chan ZC. A systematic review of critical thinking in nursing education. Nurse Educ Today. 2013;33:236–40.

Scheffer BK, Rubenfeld MG. A consensus statement on critical thinking in nursing. J Nurs Educ. 2000;39:352–9.

Krupat E, Sprague JM, Wolpaw D, Haidet P, Hatem D, O’Brien B. Thinking critically about critical thinking: ability, disposition or both? Med Educ. 2011;45:625–35.

Jones A. A disciplined approach to critical thinking. In: Davies M, Barnett R, editors. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2015. pp. 169–82.

Papp KK, Huang GC, Lauzon Clabo LM, et al. Milestones of critical thinking: a developmental model for medicine and nursing. Acad Med. 2014;89:715–20.

Grace S, Innes E, Joffe B, East L, Coutts R, Nancarrow S. Identifying common values among seven health professions: an interprofessional analysis. J Interprof Care. 2017;31(3):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1288091 .

Merriam SB. Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2009.

Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2014.

Kahlke RM. Generic qualitative approaches: pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. Int J Qual Methods. 2014;13:37–52.

Varpio L, Martimianakis MA, Mylopoulos M. Qualitative research methodologies: embracing methodological borrowing, shifting and importing. In: Cleland J, Durning SJ, editors. Researching medical education. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2015. pp. 245–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118838983.ch21 .

Wheeldon J. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Using mind maps to facilitate participant recall in qualitative research. Qual Rep. 2011;16:509–22.

Umoquit MJ, Tso P, Tünde V‑A, O’brien M, Wheeldon J. Diagrammatic elicitation: defining the use of diagrams in data collection. Qual Rep. 2013;18(60):1–12.

MindMup 2. Available from: https://www.mindmup.com/ . Accessed: 1 March 2018

Wheeldon J, Framing Experience FJ. Concept maps, mind maps, and data collection in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8:68–83.

Crilly N, Blackwell A, Clarkson PJ. Graphic elicitation: using research diagrams as interview stimuli. Qual Res. 2006;6:341–66.

Hathaway AD, Atkinson M. Active interview techniques in research on public deviants: exploring the two-cop personas. Field methods. 2003;15:161–85.

Onwuegbuzie AJ, Dickinson WB, Leech NL, Zoran AG. A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8:1–21.

Kinchin IM, Streatfield D, Hay DB. Using concept mapping to enhance the research interview. Int J Qual Methods. 2010;9:52–68.

Varpio L, Ajjawi R, Monrouxe L, O’Brien B, Rees C. Shedding the cobra effect: problematizing thematic emergence, triangulation, saturation and member checking. Med Educ. 2017;51:40–50.

Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2013.

Christians CG. Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2000. pp. 133–55.

Kahlke RM, White J. Critical thinking in health sciences education: considering ‘three waves’. Creat Educ. 2014;4:21–9.

Introduction WKS. beyond logicism in critical thinking. In: Walters KS, editor. Re-thinking reason: new perspectives on critical thinking. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1994. pp. 1–22.

Barnett R. A curriculum of critical being. In: Davies M, Barnett R, editors. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2015. pp. 63–76.

Pithers RT, Soden R. Critical thinking in education: a review. Educ Res. 2000;42:237–49.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Paul Newton for his contributions to the analysis of these data, in his role as supervisor of the dissertation work on which this manuscript is based. Thanks also to Dr. Dan Pratt for his help and support in developing this manuscript.

Support for this work was provided by the Government of Alberta (Queen Elizabeth II Graduate Scholarship), by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Doctoral Fellowship), and by the University of British Columbia (Postdoctoral Fellowship).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Health Education Scholarship, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Renate Kahlke & Kevin Eva

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renate Kahlke .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

R. Kahlke and K. Eva declare that they have no competing interests.

Caption Electronic Supplementary Material

Appendix a: interview guide for initial interview, appendix b: interview guide for second interview, appendix c: mind map, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kahlke, R., Eva, K. Constructing critical thinking in health professional education. Perspect Med Educ 7 , 156–165 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0415-z

Download citation

Published : 04 April 2018

Issue Date : June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-018-0415-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Critical thinking
• Clinical reasoning
• Health professions education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• First Appointment Online Booking
• One To One Therapy
• Specialist in PTSD & Trauma Online Counselling
• Executive Coaching & Management Therapy
• Professional Patient Referral Therapy Services
• Bipolar Disorder Therapy
• Anger Management Therapy
• Anxiety Therapy
• Confidence Therapy
• Depression Therapy
• Marriage Therapy
• Panic Therapy
• Sex Therapy
• Trauma / PTSD Therapy
• Full List of Therapy Services
• How To Stress Less.
• How To Change Your Life.
• Hypnotherapy Audiobooks
• Meditation Audiobooks
• Audiobooks With Audible
• Audiobooks With iTunes
• Erectile Dysfunction Solutions
• Premature Ejaculation Solution
• Weight Loss Support
• Supplements For The Brain
• Recommended Brands
• Recommended Reading
• Training & Workshops For Your Business

The Science Behind Critical Thinking and Its Role in Mental Health

In the journey towards understanding and improving mental health, one cannot overlook the influence of a powerful cognitive tool known as critical thinking..

Here we will delve into the science underpinning critical thinking and shed light on its role in bolstering mental health. 

Exploring the Foundations of Critical Thinking 

The term 'critical thinking' encompasses a broad set of cognitive skills and dispositions aimed at objective analysis and evaluation of information. It involves thinking in a clear, logical, and reflective manner to make reasoned judgements. Critical thinking is not merely being critical in the negative sense, but rather, it's about engaging with information critically - questioning, analysing, and evaluating - to reach a sound, unbiased conclusion. 

The science behind critical thinking is rooted in various cognitive processes, including perception, memory, attention, and problem-solving. It involves the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain associated with complex cognitive behaviour, decision-making, and social behaviour. A strong capacity for critical thinking implies that these cognitive processes and brain regions are functioning optimally. 

Critical Thinking and Mental Health: The Connection

The relationship between critical thinking and mental health is more intertwined than it might initially appear. Many mental health issues can be traced back to negative or distorted thinking patterns. These unhelpful thinking styles can lead to emotional distress and behavioural problems. It's here that critical thinking comes into play, as it equips individuals with the ability to identify, analyse, and ultimately challenge these negative thought patterns.

The Interplay of Perception and Critical Thinking 

Perception, the process of interpreting the information that we receive through our senses, plays a significant role in critical thinking. It shapes our understanding of the world around us and influences our reactions to various situations. However, perception can sometimes be biased or distorted, leading to misunderstandings or misconceptions. 

Critical thinking allows us to scrutinise our perceptions and question their accuracy. It encourages us to seek evidence and consider alternative perspectives, leading to a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of our experiences. This process can have a profound impact on our mental health, as it helps to challenge distorted perceptions that can fuel negative emotions or unhealthy behaviours.

Memory's Role in Critical Thinking

Memory, another key cognitive process, also intersects with critical thinking. Our memories of past experiences can shape our current thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. However, memories are not always accurate representations of reality. They can be influenced by our current mood, biases, and beliefs, leading to distorted recollections.

Critical thinking can help us evaluate our memories objectively. It prompts us to question the accuracy of our recollections and consider the influence of external factors. This reflective approach can prevent us from basing our beliefs or behaviours on distorted memories, thereby enhancing our mental health.

Attention and Its Influence on Critical Thinking

Attention, the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on one aspect while ignoring others, is crucial for critical thinking. It enables us to focus on relevant information and ignore irrelevant distractions. However, attention can be biased towards negative information, especially in individuals with mental health issues such as anxiety or depression.

Critical thinking skills can aid in managing attentional biases. It involves questioning why we are focusing on certain aspects and ignoring others, considering the impact of this focus, and making a conscious effort to direct our attention in a more balanced manner. This approach can reduce negative bias, improve emotional well-being, and enhance overall mental health. 

Problem-Solving: A Crucial Component of Critical Thinking

Problem-solving is an integral part of critical thinking. It involves identifying problems, generating potential solutions, and evaluating these solutions to make an informed decision. Individuals with strong problem-solving skills are often good critical thinkers, as they can analyse situations objectively, consider various solutions, and make reasoned decisions based on evidence. In the context of mental health, problem-solving skills can help manage stress, navigate life's challenges, and improve overall well-being. 

Cognitive Biases and Critical Thinking 

Cognitive biases, systematic errors in thinking that influence our judgements and decisions, can impede critical thinking. They can lead to distorted perceptions, irrational beliefs, and poor decision-making, which can negatively impact mental health. Common cognitive biases include confirmation bias, where we focus on information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs, and negativity bias, where we pay more attention to negative information.

Critical thinking can help us recognise and overcome these cognitive biases. It encourages us to question our biases, seek diverse perspectives, and make decisions based on objective evidence rather than biased perceptions. By mitigating the impact of cognitive biases, critical thinking can promote healthier thought patterns, better decision-making, and improved mental health.

The Impact of Critical Thinking on Emotional Intelligence 

Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand, use, and manage our own emotions in positive ways, can be enhanced through critical thinking. By critically analysing our emotional responses, we can gain insights into our emotional patterns, understand the triggers for certain emotions, and develop effective strategies to manage these emotions. This understanding can lead to improved emotional regulation, better interpersonal relationships, and enhanced mental health.

Critical Thinking and Resilience

Critical thinking also plays a significant role in building resilience, the ability to bounce back from adversity. Resilient individuals use critical thinking to understand the nature of the adversity, explore various coping strategies, and make informed decisions to overcome the challenge. This ability not only helps manage the immediate adversity but also fosters mental strength, which can safeguard against future challenges.

In conclusion, the science behind critical thinking and its role in mental health is a fascinating and integral area of exploration. By enhancing our cognitive processes, helping us navigate our emotions, and bolstering our resilience, critical thinking serves as a powerful tool for mental health.

At times, life can be overwhelming and leave us feeling lost, anxious, or depressed.

Counselling can provide the support and guidance needed to navigate difficult times and achieve mental well-being. We offer a safe and confidential space to explore your thoughts, feelings, and concerns. We believe that everyone deserves access to quality mental health care, and we strive to provide an inclusive and non-judgmental environment for all.

If you are struggling with mental health issues or feeling overwhelmed, we invite you to reach out to us for support. We are here to listen, guide, and empower you towards a healthier and happier life. Don't let mental health challenges hold you back from living your best life. Contact us today to schedule an appointment and take the first step towards better mental health.

What is mineral sands mining and why are farmers wary of its potential to lead us 'out of climate crisis'?

Mineral sands are used to make everything from electric cars and smartphones to sunscreen.

As Australia enters what Trade Minister Don Farrell is calling a "golden age in critical minerals development", mining companies are eyeing vast stretches of farmland in Victoria and New South Wales for mineral sand mines.

But farmers are concerned about the loss of agricultural land and future health of areas earmarked for mining.

So, what exactly is mineral sands mining? And what does it mean for the environment and the communities that live there?

Minerals needed for renewable energy transition

Australian National University professor of economic geology John Mavrogenes says a global transition to renewable energy is needed to avoid climate catastrophe, and will not be possible without critical minerals.

Australia is home to some of the earth's largest recoverable deposits of critical minerals, including rare earths, titanium and zirconium, which are found in mineral sands deposits.

"It seems like a strange position to say that we're going to mine our way out of the climate crisis, because we're programmed to think that mining is bad, and green is good," Professor Mavrogenes says.

"But we're in this quandary where we're going to need a lot of magnets and batteries if we're going to do this, and that's going to take a lot of lithium and rare earths, and we're going to have to get them from somewhere."

Valuable commodity

The minerals in mineral sands are used in batteries, magnets, aerospace, defence technologies, and health care.

University of Adelaide chemical engineering professor Nigel Cook says the world needs vast volumes of these minerals if it is to transition to renewable energy technology.

"Demand for the critical rare earths ... is certainly strong and is likely to continue to increase in the future," he says.

According to the International Energy Agency, producing an electric car requires more than 200 kilograms of critical minerals, including rare earth elements for magnets and lithium for the car's battery.

Producing a wind turbine requires up to 2 tonnes of rare earths to produce permanent magnets.

Australia's race to become a critical minerals leader

Professor Cook says Australia has the potential to become a critical minerals superpower.

"We've got fantastic resources in this country. We've got the know how, we've got the skills. And there's a lot to be gained from this," Professor Cook said.

Australia is home to about one fifth of the world's potential supply of rare earth elements.

It is also home to the world's largest deposits of zirconium, the world's largest deposits of titanium-rich rutile, and the world's second-largest deposits of titanium-rich ilmenite.

But Australian production of critical minerals is small in comparison to China, which dominates both world production and processing of rare earths.

"The Chinese really are controlling the rare earth markets, as indeed they are for a number of other critical minerals as well," Professor Cook said.

"And this is really why the federal government here and also in the US especially have tried to divert investment to make sure that there's a plentiful supply of rare earths to avoid situations in which China might restrict exports."

In October 2023, the United States and Australia signed a compact with the aim of working together to build a "clean energy supply chain" outside China.

The same month, the Australian government announced it would increase the funding available for critical minerals mining and processing to $6 billion in an effort to boost Australian production.

The government is also calling for private investment, unveiling in January 2024 a list of 52 "high-quality, investment ready critical minerals projects" in need of private funding, including mineral sands projects.

Not without cost

University of Sydney postdoctoral research associate and Minerals Policy Institute chairperson Lian Sinclair says developing a critical minerals industry in Australia will not come without costs.

"For all mining, there's an issue of land clearance, which has some kind of biodiversity impact, or if it's land clearing of farmland, then it's a loss of farmland," Dr Sinclair says.

"There's water use involved, and then there's tailings ... the waste product that's left from initial stages of processing."

Once mining was completed, companies are required to rehabilitate mined land, but Dr Sinclair says there are "very few successful examples" of former mine sites being returned to healthy natural ecosystems in Australia.

A 2017 report by the Australia Institute concluded that despite thousands of mine closures in Australia since colonisation, just a handful had been successfully rehabilitated.

Health concerns

Rare earth mining from mineral sands also typically generates radioactive waste, due to low levels of radioactive minerals uranium and thorium present in monazite.

Dr Sinclair says companies must find ways to safely handle radioactive waste to keep workers and community members safe.

"How well are those heavy metals and radioactive materials being separated from the environment? And how can the company guarantee that they will be separated from the environment in the event of floods, or other disasters in perpetuity?" Dr Sinclair asked.

Fast-tracking onshore processing

To extract the maximum value from Australia's critical mineral deposits, Professor Mavrogenes says Australia should develop the capacity to process the minerals itself, rather than shipping them overseas.

"If we want to just make 10 per cent [of potential income from] this multi-billion-dollar annual industry, then we should just dig and ship, which is what we traditionally do in Australia," he said.

"If we want to cash in on more of the supply chain, we're going to have to get more technical, and we're going to have to extract them and do something with them."

The Australian government is attempting to fast-track the development of onshore processing, granting $1.25 billion in investment funding from the Critical Minerals Facility to the development of mining giant Iluka's Eneabba rare earths processing plant in Western Australia — due to be commissioned in late 2025.

A rare earths processing plant built by Lynas in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, began production for the first time in December.

And proposals are in the pipeline for processing plants at other mine sites, including VHM's proposed Goschen mineral sands and rare earths mine in northern Victoria.

Farmers oppose mines

The mineral sands mines proposed for the Murray Basin cover tens of thousands of hectares of farmland, including prime cropping country.

Victorian Farmers Federation president Emma Germano cautioned the government to take "a slow and precautionary approach to mining development to ensure food and fibre production is not jeopardised."

Astron Corporation's Donald Rare Earths and Mineral Sands Project, which has been granted a mining licence but is still seeking finance, covers 2,500 hectares of land in Victoria's Wimmera region , with more than 40,000 hectares of primarily agricultural land  under exploration.

WIM Resources' Avonbank mine, near Horsham in Victoria, covers 3,546 hectares  of cropping country, while initial stages of VHM's proposed Goschen mineral sands mine south of Swan Hill will cover 1,479 hectares of agricultural land .

Both projects have sparked opposition from farming communities, with dozens of submissions calling on the Victorian government to oppose the projects and formed the lobby group Mine Free Mallee Farms.

ABC Rural news daily

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Mineral sands mine sparks land use battle in northern victoria.

Kimberley town reeling as mine changes tack on export plans

'Machines are moving in': An Aussie company is drilling on Mannar Island and locals say they weren't informed

'No choice but to oppose': Victorian council says no to controversial mineral sands mine

The 500-million-year journey from Antarctica for WA's lucrative mineral sands

• Business, Economics and Finance
• Environment
• Environmental Impact
• Mining (Rural)
• Mining Environmental Issues
• Mining and Metals Industry