critical thinking in health care definition

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• 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 healthcare and education

• Related content
• Peer review
• Jonathan M Sharples , professor 1 ,
• Andrew D Oxman , research director 2 ,
• Kamal R Mahtani , clinical lecturer 3 ,
• Iain Chalmers , coordinator 4 ,
• Sandy Oliver , professor 1 ,
• Kevan Collins , chief executive 5 ,
• Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren , senior researcher 2 ,
• Tammy Hoffmann , professor 6
• 1 EPPI-Centre, UCL Department of Social Science, London, UK
• 2 Global Health Unit, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
• 3 Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
• 4 James Lind Initiative, Oxford, UK
• 5 Education Endowment Foundation, London, UK
• 6 Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia
• Correspondence to: J M Sharples Jonathan.Sharples{at}eefoundation.org.uk

Critical thinking is just one skill crucial to evidence based practice in healthcare and education, write Jonathan Sharples and colleagues , who see exciting opportunities for cross sector collaboration

Imagine you are a primary care doctor. A patient comes into your office with acute, atypical chest pain. Immediately you consider the patient’s sex and age, and you begin to think about what questions to ask and what diagnoses and diagnostic tests to consider. You will also need to think about what treatments to consider and how to communicate with the patient and potentially with the patient’s family and other healthcare providers. Some of what you do will be done reflexively, with little explicit thought, but caring for most patients also requires you to think critically about what you are going to do.

Critical thinking, the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe, is essential for the practice of medicine. Few doctors are likely to argue with this. Yet, until recently, the UK regulator the General Medical Council and similar bodies in North America did not mention “critical thinking” anywhere in their standards for licensing and accreditation, 1 and critical thinking is not explicitly taught or assessed in most education programmes for health professionals. 2

Moreover, although more than 2800 articles indexed by PubMed have “critical thinking” in the title or abstract, most are about nursing. We argue that it is important for clinicians and patients to learn to think critically and that the teaching and learning of these skills should be considered explicitly. Given the shared interest in critical thinking with broader education, we also highlight why healthcare and education professionals and researchers need to work together to enable people to think critically about the health choices they make throughout life.

Essential skills for doctors and patients

Critical thinking …

Log in using your username and password

BMA Member Log In

If you have a subscription to The BMJ, log in:

• Need to activate
• Log in via institution
• Log in via OpenAthens

Log in through your institution

Subscribe from £184 *.

Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.

* For online subscription

Access this article for 1 day for: £50 / $60/ €56 ( excludes VAT )

You can download a PDF version for your personal record.

Buy this article

ANA Nursing Resources Hub

Search Resources Hub

Critical Thinking in Nursing: Tips to Develop the Skill

4 min read • February, 09 2024

Critical thinking in nursing helps caregivers make decisions that lead to optimal patient care. In school, educators and clinical instructors introduced you to critical-thinking examples in nursing. These educators encouraged using learning tools for assessment, diagnosis, planning, implementation, and evaluation.

Nurturing these invaluable skills continues once you begin practicing. Critical thinking is essential to providing quality patient care and should continue to grow throughout your nursing career until it becomes second nature. 

What Is Critical Thinking in Nursing?

Critical thinking in nursing involves identifying a problem, determining the best solution, and implementing an effective method to resolve the issue using clinical decision-making skills.

Reflection comes next. Carefully consider whether your actions led to the right solution or if there may have been a better course of action.

Remember, there's no one-size-fits-all treatment method — you must determine what's best for each patient.

How Is Critical Thinking Important for Nurses? 

As a patient's primary contact, a nurse is typically the first to notice changes in their status. One example of critical thinking in nursing is interpreting these changes with an open mind. Make impartial decisions based on evidence rather than opinions. By applying critical-thinking skills to anticipate and understand your patients' needs, you can positively impact their quality of care and outcomes.

Elements of Critical Thinking in Nursing

To assess situations and make informed decisions, nurses must integrate these specific elements into their practice:

• Clinical judgment. Prioritize a patient's care needs and make adjustments as changes occur. Gather the necessary information and determine what nursing intervention is needed. Keep in mind that there may be multiple options. Use your critical-thinking skills to interpret and understand the importance of test results and the patient’s clinical presentation, including their vital signs. Then prioritize interventions and anticipate potential complications. 
• Patient safety. Recognize deviations from the norm and take action to prevent harm to the patient. Suppose you don't think a change in a patient's medication is appropriate for their treatment. Before giving the medication, question the physician's rationale for the modification to avoid a potential error. 
• Communication and collaboration. Ask relevant questions and actively listen to others while avoiding judgment. Promoting a collaborative environment may lead to improved patient outcomes and interdisciplinary communication. 
• Problem-solving skills. Practicing your problem-solving skills can improve your critical-thinking skills. Analyze the problem, consider alternate solutions, and implement the most appropriate one. Besides assessing patient conditions, you can apply these skills to other challenges, such as staffing issues . 

How to Develop and Apply Critical-Thinking Skills in Nursing

Critical-thinking skills develop as you gain experience and advance in your career. The ability to predict and respond to nursing challenges increases as you expand your knowledge and encounter real-life patient care scenarios outside of what you learned from a textbook. 

Here are five ways to nurture your critical-thinking skills:

• Be a lifelong learner. Continuous learning through educational courses and professional development lets you stay current with evidence-based practice . That knowledge helps you make informed decisions in stressful moments.  
• Practice reflection. Allow time each day to reflect on successes and areas for improvement. This self-awareness can help identify your strengths, weaknesses, and personal biases to guide your decision-making.
• Open your mind. Don't assume you're right. Ask for opinions and consider the viewpoints of other nurses, mentors , and interdisciplinary team members.
• Use critical-thinking tools. Structure your thinking by incorporating nursing process steps or a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) to organize information, evaluate options, and identify underlying issues.
• Be curious. Challenge assumptions by asking questions to ensure current care methods are valid, relevant, and supported by evidence-based practice .

Critical thinking in nursing is invaluable for safe, effective, patient-centered care. You can successfully navigate challenges in the ever-changing health care environment by continually developing and applying these skills.

Images sourced from Getty Images

Related Resources

Item(s) added to cart

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 .

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  

9031 Accesses

36 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

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Med Sci Monit
• v.17(1); 2011

Evidence and its uses in health care and research: The role of critical thinking

Milos jenicek.

1 Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Michael G. de Groote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Pat Croskerry

2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

David L. Hitchcock

3 David L. Hitchcock, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Obtaining and critically appraising evidence is clearly not enough to make better decisions in clinical care. The evidence should be linked to the clinician’s expertise, the patient’s individual circumstances (including values and preferences), and clinical context and settings. We propose critical thinking and decision-making as the tools for making that link.

Critical thinking is also called for in medical research and medical writing, especially where pre-canned methodologies are not enough. It is also involved in our exchanges of ideas at floor rounds, grand rounds and case discussions; our communications with patients and lay stakeholders in health care; and our writing of research papers, grant applications and grant reviews.

Critical thinking is a learned process which benefits from teaching and guided practice like any discipline in health sciences. Training in critical thinking should be a part or a pre-requisite of the medical curriculum.

Sackett et al. originally defined evidence based medicine (EBM) as ‘… the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients’, and its integration with individual clinical expertise [ 1 ].’ In the nearly two decades that have intervened, there has been significant uptake of the idea that clinical care should be based upon sound, systematically researched evidence. There has been less emphasis on how clinical expertise itself might be improved, perhaps because the concept is more amorphous and difficult to define.

Clinical expertise is an amalgam of several things: there must be a solid knowledge base, some considerable clinical experience, and an ability to think, reason, and decide in a competent and well-calibrated fashion. Our focus here is on this last component: the faculties of thinking, reasoning and decision making. Clinicians must be able to integrate the best available critically appraised evidence with insights into their patients, the clinical context, and themselves [ 2 ]. To accomplish this integration, physicians need to develop their critical thinking skills. Yet historically this need has not received explicit attention in medical training. We believe that it should.

As an illustration of the use of critical thinking in clinical care, consider the following clinical scenario from emergency medicine : A 52-year-old male presents to the emergency department of a community centre with a complaint of constipation and is triaged with a low level acuity score to a ‘minors’ area. The department is extremely busy and several hours elapse before he is seen by the emergency physician. His principal complaint is constipation; he hasn’t had a bowel movement for 4 days. His abdomen is soft and non-tender. A large amount of firm stool is evident on rectal examination. He recalls a minor back strain a few days earlier. The physician orders a soapsuds enema and continues seeing other patients. After about 30 minutes he finds the nurse who administered the enema; she reports that it was ineffective. He orders a fleet enema which again proves ineffective. The nurse expresses her opinion that the patient is taking up too much time and suggests he be given an oral laxative and another fleet enema to take home with him. She is clearly unwilling to continue investing her effort in a patient with a trivial complaint. Nevertheless, the physician decides to administer a third enema himself. The third enema is only marginally effective and he then decides to disimpact the patient. The physician notes poor rectal tone and enquires further about the patient’s urination. He says he has been unable to urinate that day. On catheterisation he is found to have 1200cc. Neurological findings are equivocal: reflexes are present in both legs and there is some subjective diminished sensation.

A diagnosis of cauda equina syndrome is made and the emergency physician calls the neurosurgery service at a tertiary care hospital. It is now late in the evening. The neurosurgeon is reluctant to accept the working diagnosis. He suggests that the loss of sphincter tone might be due to the disimpaction, and argues that there was no significant history of back injury or convincing neurological findings. When the ED physician persists, the neurosurgeon suggests transferring the patient to the tertiary hospital ED for further evaluation and asks for a CT investigation of the patient’s lower spine before seeing him. The CT reveals only some minor abnormalities and the patient is kept overnight. An MRI is done in the morning. It shows extensive disc herniation with compression of nerve roots. The patient subsequently undergoes prolonged back surgery.

This case had a good outcome, although things might have been dramatically different. The patient might have suffered permanent neurological injury requiring lifelong catheterisation for urination.

Our scenario illustrates some key points about clinical decision making. At the outset, the patient presents with an apparently benign condition – constipation. The impression of a benign condition is incorporated at triage and results in a low-level acuity score and prolonged wait. The patient’s nurse also incorporates this diagnosis and exerts coercive pressure on the physician to discharge the patient. The neurosurgeon is dismissive of a physician’s assessment in a community centre ED, creating considerable inertia against referral. Thus the ED physician faces a variety of obstacles to ensure optimal patient care. These have little to do with EBM. He must resist and overcome a variety of cognitive, affective and systemic biases, his own as well as others’, and various contextual constraints. He must continue to think critically and persist in a course that has become increasingly challenging.

Our scenario also illustrates some key points about critical thinking. The initial impression of a benign condition of constipation is not the only diagnosis compatible with the patient’s symptoms. A health care professional reaching a preliminary diagnosis must be aware of the danger of fixing prematurely on this diagnosis and ignoring (or failing to look for) subsequent evidence that tells against it, as the nurse in our scenario was inclined to do. Observational and textual studies both indicate that the most common source of errors in reasoning is to close prematurely on a favoured conclusion and then ignore evidence that argues against that conclusion [ 3 ]. It is also important to keep in mind that a patient’s signs or symptoms may have more than one cause. Data that may confirm one of the causes does not necessarily rule out all the others. Attentive listening to the patient and careful looking in the data-gathering stage are essential to good medical practice, as Groopman has recently pointed out [ 4 ]. From a logical point of view, the physician’s diagnostic task is to gather data that will determine which one (or ones) of the possible causes is (or are) responsible for the patient’s problem. This goal will guide the selection of data and of additional tests. ‘Parallel’ or ‘lateral’ thinking [ 5 ] will help with the differential diagnosis.

Critical Thinking

Dewey’s original conceptualization [ 6 ] of what he called “reflective thinking” has spawned in the intervening century a variety of definitions of critical thinking, most notably that of Ennis as “ reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or what to do” [ 7 ] . Scriven and Paul have elaborated this definition as “… the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skilfully conceptualizing, applying, synthesizing or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication as a guide to belief or action ” [ 8 ].

The consensus of 48 specialists in critical thinking from the fields of education, philosophy and psychology was that it should be defined as ‘ purposeful self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgement is based ’ [ 9 ]. The list of additional definitions remains impressive [ 10 , 11 ].

Even more useful than these definitions are various lists of dispositions and skills characteristic of a “critical thinker” [ 7 , 9 , 12 ]. More useful still are criteria and standards for measuring possession of those skills and dispositions [ 13 ], criteria that have been used to develop standardized tests of critical thinking skills and dispositions [ 14 – 17 ] including some with specific reference to health sciences [ 18 ].

The elements of critical thinking subsume what has variously been described as clinical judgment [ 19 ] , logic of medicine [ 20 , 21 ] , logic in medicine [ 22 ] , philosophy of medicine [ 23 ] , causal inference [ 24 ] , medical decision making [ 25 ], clinical decision making [ 26 ], clinical decision analysis [ 27 ], and clinical reasoning [ 28 ]. An increasing number of monographs on logic and critical thinking in general have appeared [ 29 – 34 ] and their content is being adapted for medicine [ 35 – 37 ].

Everyday medical practice, whether in physicians’ offices or emergency departments or hospital wards, clearly involves “ reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe (meaning the understanding of the problem) and/or what to do (i.e. deciding what to do to solve the problem)” [ 7 , 38 ]. Table 1 lists specific abilities underlying critical thinking in medical practice.

Specific abilities underlying critical thinking in medical practice.

Critical thinking is also called for in medical research and medical writing. Editors of leading medical journals have called for it. Edward Huth [ 39 , 40 ], former editor of Annals of Internal Medicine, has urged that medical articles reflect better and more organized ways of reasoning. Richard Horton [ 41 , 42 ], former editor of The Lancet , has proposed the use in medical writing of a contemporary approach to argument along the lines used by the philosopher Toulmin [ 40 , 41 ]. Subsequently, two of us have developed this approach in detail for medicine [ 43 , 44 ]. Dickinson [ 45 ] has called for an argumentative approach in medical problem solving and brought it to the attention to the world of medical informatics and beyond.

Dual Process Theory

An important component of critical thinking is being aware of one’s own thinking processes. In recent years, two general modes of thinking have been described under an approach described as dual process theory. The model is universal and has been directly applied to medicine [ 46 – 48 ] and nursing [ 49 ]. One mode is fast, reflexive, autonomous, and generally referred to as intuitive or System 1 thinking. The other is slow, deliberate, rule-based, and referred to as analytical or System 2 thinking. The mechanisms that underlie System 1 thinking are based on associative learning and innate dispositions: the latter are hard-wired, as a result of the evolutionary history of our species, to respond reflexively to certain cues in the environment. We have discrete, functionally-specialized mental programs that were selected when the brain was undergoing significant development especially spanning the last 6 million years of hominid evolution [ 50 ]. Although these programs may have served us well in our ancestral past, they may not be appropriate in some aspects of modern living. Some of this System 1 substrate also underlies various heuristics and biases in our thinking – the tendency to take mental short-cuts, or demonstrate reflexive responses in certain situations, often on the basis of past experience. Not surprisingly, most error occurs in System 1 thinking.

Contemplative , or fully reflective thinking, is System 2 thinking. It suits any practice of medicine or medical research activity where there is time to utilise the best critically appraised evidence in a step-by-step process of reasoning and argument. Contemplative, fully reflective thinking is appropriate, for example, in internal medicine, psychiatry, public health, and other specialties, in etiological research and clinical trials, and in writing up the results of such research [ 35 ].

In contrast, a shortcut or heuristic approach [ 51 ] with somehow truncated thinking is often dictated by the realities of emergency medicine, surgery, obstetrics or any situation where there is incomplete information, bounded rationality, and insufficient time to be fully reflective. The extant findings and the decision maker’s experience are all that is available. The quintessential challenge for well-calibrated decision making is to optimise performance in System 1. Hogarth [ 52 ] sees this challenge as educating our intuitive processes and has delineated a variety of strategies through which this might be accomplished.

No responsible physician would engage in reflective thinking on every occasion when a decision has to be made. Such acute emergencies as sudden complications of labour and delivery, ruptured aneurysms, multiple trauma victims and other immediately life-threatening situations generally leave no time for fully reflective thinking. A shortcut or heuristic approach is required [ 51 ], involving pattern recognition, steepest ascent reasoning, or algorithmic paths [ 21 , 53 ]. There is of course a place for reflective thinking before and after such time-constrained emergency decisions. More generally, reflective thinking is called for in any aspect of medical practice where there is time and reason for it.

The distinction should be made between the involuntary autonomous nature of System 1 thinking and a deliberate decision to use a shortcut for expediency, which is System 2 thinking. There is normally an override function of System 2 over System 1 but this may be deliberately lifted under extreme conditions.

Future Direction

Critical thinking is a learned process which benefits from teaching and guided practice like any other discipline in health sciences. It was already proposed as part of an early medical curriculum [ 54 ]. If we are to train future generations of health professionals as critical thinkers, we should do so in the spirit of critical thinking as it stands today. Clinical teachers should know how to run a Socratic discourse, and in which situations it is appropriate. They should be aware of contemporary models of argument. Clinical teachers should be trained and experienced in engaging with their interns and residents in meaningful discourse while presenting and discussing morning reports, at floor and other rounds, in morbidity and mortality conferences, or at less informal ‘hallway’, ‘elevator’ or ‘coffee-maker/drinking fountain’ teaching sites for busy clinicians. Such discourse is better than so-called “pimping”, i.e. quizzing of juniors with objectives ranging from knowledge acquisition to embarrassment and humiliation [ 37 , 55 ].

Also, somebody should point out to trainees the relevance to the health context of some basics of informal logic, critical thinking and argumentation, if those basics have been acquired as the result of studying for their first undergraduate degree.

Unquestionably, the appropriate critically appraised best evidence should be used as a foundation for reasoning and argument about how to care for patients. But, if we want to link the best available evidence to a patient’s biology, the patient’s values and preferences, the clinical or community setting, and other circumstances, we should take all these factors into account in using the best available evidence to get to the beliefs and decisions that have the best possible support.

Such a reflective integration cannot be mastered by mere exposure. A learning experience is required. Trainees in medicine need to learn how to think critically [ 56 ], just as they need to learn contemporary approaches to ‘rational’ medical decision making: how to use Bayes’ theorem in the diagnostic process, how to determine the sample size in a clinical trial, how to analyze survival curves in prognosis and outcomes studies, and how to calculate odds ratios in case control research. To understand each other, the teacher and the learner should both know the fundamentals of reasoning and argument in medicine. To achieve this understanding, we can either offer separate and distinct courses on critical thinking and decision making in medicine; or spread learning, practice and experience in critical thinking and decision making across various specialties; or do both. Only the future will show which of the alternatives is better. The integrated approach seems more promising, but harder to implement. Given the limitations on the current medical undergraduate curriculum, we might be hard-pressed to persuade a curriculum committee that precious space and time should be allocated to such concepts. The overriding rationale, however, should be that the knowledge of critical and reflective thinking is declarative knowledge (knowing how) and not simply an addition of procedural knowledge (know-how) or explicit knowledge. The old adage about it being preferable to teach someone how to fish rather than giving them fish applies. Any new additions will need to be streamlined and practical. A teaching module on critical thinking might for example include attention to how we reason and make decisions, factors that may impair decision making, the concept of critical thinking, situations where critical thinking is appropriate, some basic principles of logic and some logical fallacies. However the teaching, learning and practice of critical thinking is incorporated in the medical curriculum, it will need to include not only the contemplative, fully reflective thinking on hospital floors and in clinics but also the shortcut thinking [ 57 ] in such heuristic environments as operating theatres or emergency departments [ 46 , 48 , 58 – 60 ].

Similar education is required as a basis for framing grant applications and research reports as reasoned arguments, especially in the discussion section [ 61 , 62 ]. We may see a day when most medical journals are what Paton [ 63 ] terms “reflective journals”. If an application for a research grant, a research proposal, or a group of research findings (systematically reviewed or not) presented in a medical article are all exercises in argumentation and critical thinking, their authors, readers, and editors should find a common language for all these types of scientific and professional communication.

Almost four decades ago Feinstein [ 64 ] asked what kind of basic science clinical medicine needs. At that time, he had mostly clinical biostatistics and epidemiology in mind. Recently, Redelmeier et al. [ 65 ] proposed to add cognitive psychology as one more basic science. It is time, we think, to add critical thinking to that list.

Competing interests

None declared.

Source of support: None. Departmental support to produce the manuscript is acknowledged and appreciated

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Critical Thinking Skills in Health Care Professional Students: A Systematic Review

Brudvig, Tracy J. PT, DPT, PhD, OCS; Dirkes, Angelique PT, DPT, MS; Dutta, Priyanka PT, MS; Rane, Kalpita PT, MS

Tracy Brudvig is a clinical associate professor in the Department of Physical Therapy in the MGH Institute of Health Professions, 36 1st Avenue, Boston, MA 02129 ( [email protected] ). Please address all correspondence to Tracy Brudvig.

Angelique Dirkes is a clinical instructor in the Department of Physical Therapy in the MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, Massachusetts.

Priyanka Dutta was a student in the Master of Science in Physical Therapy program at the MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, Massachusetts, when this study was conducted.

Kalpita Rane was a student in the Master of Science in Physical Therapy program at the MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, Massachusetts, when this study was conducted.

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Received January 8, 2012, and accepted August 19, 2012.

Background and Purpose. 

The purpose of this systematic review is to determine if critical-thinking skills in health care professional students change as a result of participating in a health care professional education program, and to assess the quality of the evidence evaluating this change.

Method/Model Description and Evaluation. 

The study design was a systematic review. Six electronic databases were searched. Articles were graded using the Evaluation Guidelines for Rating the Quality of an Intervention Study.

Outcomes. 

Eighteen articles were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Ten articles were identified in nursing, 5 in physical therapy and occupational therapy, 2 in pharmacy, and 1 in medicine. The scores on the Evaluation Guidelines for Rating the Quality of an Intervention Study ranged from 17 to 26 out of 48. The intraclass correlation of the 2 raters on the Evaluation Guidelines for Rating the Quality of an Intervention Study was 0.87. Eight studies in nursing, 2 studies in physical therapy, 1 study each in occupational therapy, pharmacy, and medicine showed statistically significant change in criticalthinking skills.

Discussion and Conclusion. 

The evidence measuring the acquisition of criticalthinking skills in the fields of physical therapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy, and medicine is scarce. In nursing, although the majority of the studies support the acquisition of critical- thinking skills, none of the studies established appropriate sample size and statistical power analysis, and the cross-sectional studies did not perform group matching beyond sex and age. In physical therapy, the results are mixed and the studies lack adequate statistical power. In occupational therapy, pharmacy, and medicine, the studies that showed a statistically significant increase in critical-thinking skills had relatively small sample sizes and weak statistical power. There is a need for additional welldesigned studies looking at the acquisition of critical-thinking skills in all health care fields.

Full Text Access for Subscribers:

Individual subscribers.

Institutional Users

Not a subscriber.

You can read the full text of this article if you:

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Critical thinking skills during a physical therapist professional education program</strong>', 'vendrely ann pt edd ocs', 'journal of physical therapy education', 'spring 2005', '19', '1' , 'p 55-59');" onmouseout="javascript:tooltip_mouseout()" class="ejp-uc__article-title-link"> critical thinking skills during a physical therapist professional education..., critical thinking skills and learning styles in entry-level doctor of physical therapy students</strong>', 'brudvig tracy j. pt dpt phd; mattson, d. j. pt, dpt, edd; guarino, a. j. phd', 'journal of physical therapy education', '2016', '30', '4' , 'p 3-10');" onmouseout="javascript:tooltip_mouseout()" class="ejp-uc__article-title-link"> critical thinking skills and learning styles in entry-level doctor of physical..., exploration of students’ clinical reasoning development in professional physical therapy education</strong>', 'furze jennifer pt dpt pcs; black, lisa pt, dpt; hoffman, julie pt, dpt, ccs; barr, j b pt, dpt, ocs; cochran, teresa m. pt, dpt, gcs, ma; jensen, gail m. pt, phd, fapta', 'journal of physical therapy education', '2015', '29', '3' , 'p 22-33');" onmouseout="javascript:tooltip_mouseout()" class="ejp-uc__article-title-link"> exploration of students’ clinical reasoning development in professional..., failure in clinical education: using mindfulness as a conceptual framework to explore the lived experiences of 8 physical therapists</strong>', 'willgens annette m. pt ma edd pcs; sharf, ruth phd', 'journal of physical therapy education', '2015', '29', '1' , 'p 70-80');" onmouseout="javascript:tooltip_mouseout()" class="ejp-uc__article-title-link"> failure in clinical education: using mindfulness as a conceptual framework to..., tracking change in critical-thinking skills</strong>', 'huhn karen pt phd; black, lisa pt, dpt; jensen, gail m. pt, phd, fapta; deutsch, judith e. pt, phd, fapta', 'journal of physical therapy education', 'fall 2013', '27', '3' , 'p 26-31');" onmouseout="javascript:tooltip_mouseout()" class="ejp-uc__article-title-link"> tracking change in critical-thinking skills.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Critical thinking: what does it mean in the care of elderly hospitalized patients?

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Nursing Education & Professional Development, Pennsylvania State University Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey 17033, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 18316940
• DOI: 10.1097/01.CNQ.0000306400.09777.68

In today's complex healthcare environment, it is more important than ever that nurses possess critical thinking skills to provide optimal care for their patients. This article offers a definition of critical thinking for nurses and describes the importance of critical thinking in the care of our growing elderly patient population. Examples related to geriatric nursing care, including acute care, dementia care, and end-of-life care, are provided to reinforce the importance of critical thinking and its benefits to our elderly patient population.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Changes in the Geriatric Care Environment Associated with NICHE (Nurses Improving Care for HealthSystem Elders). Boltz M, Capezuti E, Bowar-Ferres S, Norman R, Secic M, Kim H, Fairchild S, Mezey M, Fulmer T. Boltz M, et al. Geriatr Nurs. 2008 May-Jun;29(3):176-85. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2008.02.002. Geriatr Nurs. 2008. PMID: 18555159
• Nurses' advocacy behaviors in end-of-life nursing care. Thacker KS. Thacker KS. Nurs Ethics. 2008 Mar;15(2):174-85. doi: 10.1177/0969733007086015. Nurs Ethics. 2008. PMID: 18272608
• How do children's nurses make clinical decisions? Two preliminary studies. Twycross A, Powls L. Twycross A, et al. J Clin Nurs. 2006 Oct;15(10):1324-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01453.x. J Clin Nurs. 2006. PMID: 16968437
• Critical thinking and patient outcomes: a review. Fesler-Birch DM. Fesler-Birch DM. Nurs Outlook. 2005 Mar-Apr;53(2):59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2004.11.005. Nurs Outlook. 2005. PMID: 15858523 Review.
• Supporting people who have dementia to die with dignity. Ryan T, Ingleton C, Gardiner C, Nolan M, Gott M. Ryan T, et al. Nurs Older People. 2009 Jun;21(5):18-23. doi: 10.7748/nop2009.06.21.5.18.c7100. Nurs Older People. 2009. PMID: 19534169 Review.
• Changing Hospital Care For Older Adults: The Case for Geriatric Hospitals in the United States. Flaherty JH, Rodin MB, Morley JE. Flaherty JH, et al. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2022 Jul 4;8:23337214221109005. doi: 10.1177/23337214221109005. eCollection 2022 Jan-Dec. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2022. PMID: 35813982 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• Wolters Kluwer

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Transforming the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses.

Información en español

Celebrating 75 Years! Learn More >>

• Health Topics
• Brochures and Fact Sheets
• Help for Mental Illnesses
• Clinical Trials

Caring for Your Mental Health

Esta página también está disponible en español .

Mental health includes emotional, psychological, and social well-being. It is more than the absence of a mental illness—it’s essential to your overall health and quality of life. Self-care can play a role in maintaining your mental health and help support your treatment and recovery if you have a mental illness.

How can I take care of my mental health?

Self-care means taking the time to do things that help you live well and improve both your physical health and mental health. This can help you manage stress, lower your risk of illness, and increase your energy. Even small acts of self-care in your daily life can have a big impact.

Here are some self-care tips:

• Get regular exercise.  Just 30 minutes of walking every day can boost your mood and improve your health. Small amounts of exercise add up, so don’t be discouraged if you can’t do 30 minutes at one time.
• Eat healthy, regular meals and stay hydrated.  A balanced diet and plenty of water can improve your energy and focus throughout the day. Pay attention to your intake of caffeine and alcohol and how they affect your mood and well-being—for some, decreasing caffeine and alcohol consumption can be helpful.
• Make sleep a priority . Stick to a schedule, and make sure you’re getting enough sleep. Blue light from devices and screens can make it harder to fall asleep, so reduce blue light exposure from your phone or computer before bedtime.
• Try a relaxing activity.  Explore relaxation or wellness programs or apps, which may incorporate meditation, muscle relaxation, or breathing exercises. Schedule regular times for these and other healthy activities you enjoy, such as listening to music, reading, spending time in nature, and engaging in low-stress hobbies.
• Set goals and priorities.  Decide what must get done now and what can wait. Learn to say “no” to new tasks if you start to feel like you’re taking on too much. Try to appreciate what you have accomplished at the end of the day.
• Practice gratitude.  Remind yourself daily of things you are grateful for. Be specific. Write them down or replay them in your mind.
• Focus on positivity . Identify and challenge your negative and unhelpful thoughts.
• Stay connected.  Reach out to friends or family members who can provide emotional support and practical help.

Self-care looks different for everyone, and it is important to find what you need and enjoy. It may take trial and error to discover what works best for you.

Learn more about  healthy practices for your mind and body  .

When should I seek professional help?

Seek professional help if you are experiencing severe or distressing symptoms that have lasted 2 weeks or more, such as:

• Difficulty sleeping
• Changes in appetite or unplanned weight changes
• Difficulty getting out of bed in the morning because of mood
• Difficulty concentrating
• Loss of interest in things you usually find enjoyable
• Inability to complete usual tasks and activities
• Feelings of irritability, frustration, or restlessness

How can I find help?

If you have concerns about your mental health, talk to a primary care provider. They can refer you to a qualified mental health professional, such as a psychologist, psychiatrist, or clinical social worker, who can help you figure out the next steps. Find  tips for talking with a health care provider about your mental health.

You can learn more about getting help on the NIMH website. You can also learn about finding support  and locating mental health services  in your area on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.

If you or someone you know is struggling or having thoughts of suicide, call or text the  988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline   at 988 or chat at 988lifeline.org   . This service is confidential, free, and available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In life-threatening situations, call  911.

Suicide is preventable—learn about warning signs of suicide and action steps for helping someone in emotional distress.

Featured videos

GREAT: Helpful Practices to Manage Stress and Anxiety:  Learn about helpful practices to manage stress and anxiety. GREAT was developed by Dr. Krystal Lewis, a licensed clinical psychologist at NIMH.

Getting to Know Your Brain: Dealing with Stress:  Test your knowledge about stress and the brain. Also learn how to create and use a “ stress catcher ” to practice strategies to deal with stress.

Guided Visualization: Dealing with Stress:  Learn how the brain handles stress and practice a guided visualization activity.

Mental Health Minute: Stress and Anxiety in Adolescents: Got 60 seconds? Take a mental health minute to learn about stress and anxiety in adolescents.

Featured fact sheets

• NIH Wellness Toolkits   : NIH provides toolkits with strategies for improving your  emotional health  and  social health  .
• MedlinePlus: How to Improve Mental Health   : MedlinePlus provides health information and tips for improving your mental health.
• CDC: Emotional Well-Being   : CDC provides information on how to cope with stress and promote social connectedness.
• SAMHSA: How to Cope   : SAMHSA offers tips for taking care of your well-being and connecting with others for support.

Last Reviewed:  February 2024

Unless otherwise specified, the information on our website and in our publications is in the public domain and may be reused or copied without permission. However, you may not reuse or copy images. Please cite the National Institute of Mental Health as the source. Read our copyright policy to learn more about our guidelines for reusing NIMH content.