In Response to: “Commentary on Therapeutic Inertia in Nursing: A Concept Analysis (Jackson and Miller 2025)”

We sincerely appreciate the scholarly reflections provided by Jackson and Miller (2025) on our article, Therapeutic Inertia in Nursing: A Concept Analysis. Their commentary brings valuable attention to the conceptual maturation of therapeutic inertia within nursing scholarship. The questions raised regarding terminology and the proposal to categorize various forms of inertia are especially meaningful to ongoing dialogue in this area. Their observation that clinical inertia predates the broader concept of therapeutic inertia is well-founded, as the term was originally introduced in medicine by Phillips et al. (2001) to describe a failure by physicians to intensify treatment despite clear clinical need. Our use of therapeutic inertia is guided by the recognition that nursing interventions extend beyond medical treatment escalation. Nursing practice encompasses psychosocial support, lifestyle guidance, patient education, advocacy, and early recognition and response to deterioration, all of which are therapeutic in nature (Nashwan and Joy 2025). Limiting this phenomenon to the “clinical” sphere would risk confining nursing to a biomedical decision-making space, despite modern evidence that nurses routinely engage in therapeutic actions beyond medication management and diagnostic interpretation (Allen et al. 2009). Thus, adopting therapeutic rather than purely clinical terminology highlights the holistic nature of nursing interventions and acknowledges the multifaceted contributions of nurses to treatment outcomes. Jackson and Miller (2025) further propose categorizing inertia into cognitive, professional, organizational, and clinical dimensions. We view this as a promising direction for future research. Our concept analysis identified these same dimensions as antecedents contributing to delayed therapeutic action, noting factors such as communication barriers, limited decision authority, guideline underuse, professional hesitancy, and systemic workload pressures (Nashwan and Joy 2025). However, as Khunti and Davies (2017) have cautioned, premature diversification of terminology can contribute to conceptual confusion and hinder the development of targeted interventions. Concept analysis demands the establishment of a unified definition before branching into sub-concepts. Therefore, categorization should logically follow conceptual stabilization rather than precede it. We agree that terminological inconsistency has been a major barrier in the inertia literature, as noted in both medical and nursing contexts (Allen et al. 2009; Khunti and Davies 2017). Precisely this issue motivated our effort to establish an operational definition specific to nursing. A shared conceptual foundation is essential before typologies and empirical measurement tools can be meaningfully developed. Once such clarity is achieved, classification approaches such as those suggested by Jackson and Miller (2025) can support refined intervention strategies and deeper theoretical development. We value the contribution offered in the commentary and consider it a constructive step in advancing nursing theory. Their suggestions align with a logical progression in conceptual development. We join them in encouraging continued inquiry and collaboration aimed at deepening understanding of therapeutic inertia and developing practical strategies to eliminate its occurrence in the diverse therapeutic responsibilities of nursing. George V. Joy: conceptualization, writing – review and editing, writing – original draft. Abdulqadir J. Nashwan: conceptualization, supervision, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. The authors have nothing to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data sharing is not applicable, as no datasets were generated or analyzed for this commentary.