In general, numerous types of reasoning exist and find implementation, but not all of them bear special significance for decisions affecting patient care. Approaches to reasoning can be classified into types based on the inductive or deductive direction of inquiry, the use of analogy or abduction, the utilization of decomposition and evidence synthesis, and so on. In the healthcare field, reliance on credible evidence is what informs the professional community’s approach to clinical reasoning, given that mere suggestions and excessive experimentation and creativity involve extra risks for healthcare consumers. Particularly, the so-called frequency-based reasoning dominates the field, especially when it comes to guideline development, and it requires practitioners to rely on statistics in making clinical decisions (Wieringa et al., 2018). This way of thinking has diverse benefits, including the ability to limit reliance on questionable hypotheses and make virtually any decision integrated with the global healthcare knowledge base.
To clarify the standards for reasoning and determine their levels, relevant evaluative questions must be posed. When formulating such questions, it might be essential to distinguish between the scientific and ethical levels of clinical reasoning. From the viewpoint of the scientific perspective, asking questions about the thinking process’s clarity, alignment with the previously reported evidence, and relevance to objective information pertaining to the client is important to further detail the standards of reasoning. Questions regarding clinical decisions’ ethical implications can also support the determination of levels in reasoning standards. Such questions might include the consideration of benefits as perceived by the client in decision-making or the client’s unique socio-demographic situation and psycho-emotional condition in arriving at the solution. Similarly, the degree to which healthcare’s universal ethical values inform the reasoning process might be relevant in determining various levels of reasoning standards.