What is Gibbs' reflective cycle?
Gibbs' reflective cycle is a structured way of thinking through an experience so that you learn from it. Graham Gibbs set it out in 1988 in Learning by Doing, a guide to teaching and learning methods published by the Further Education Unit at Oxford Polytechnic. It is one of the most widely used reflective models in UK nursing, midwifery, medicine and allied health education.
The model is drawn as a circle because the action plan from one experience feeds into the next. Each stage asks a different question. Together they stop you from either just retelling a story or jumping straight to "I will be more careful next time".
What are the six stages of Gibbs' reflective cycle?
- Description: Set out the facts briefly: when, where, who was involved (anonymised), what you did and what the outcome was. Keep it short. This stage is context, not the reflection itself.
- Feelings: Record what you were thinking and feeling before, during and after. Consider what others may have felt. Honest feelings help explain your actions, and they show self-awareness.
- Evaluation: Weigh what was good and what was not. Be balanced. Include what you and others did well, as well as what went wrong.
- Analysis: Ask why things happened as they did. Bring in guidance, policy, evidence or theory. This is where real insight usually appears, and it is the stage most often skipped.
- Conclusion: Summarise what you have learnt and what you could have done differently. Do not add new facts here.
- Action plan: Describe specific, realistic changes, how you will make them and how you will know they have worked. Also note what you will keep doing.
A worked healthcare example using Gibbs
The example below is fictional. It shows how one experience, a near-miss with a medicine, can be written up stage by stage. It is anonymised in the way your regulator expects.
During a busy late shift on a medical ward, I was preparing an evening dose of a low molecular weight heparin for a patient in their seventies. The drug chart had been rewritten that afternoon. When I checked the dose against the most recent weight, I noticed it did not match the dosing guidance for the patient's kidney function. I did not give the dose. I escalated to the doctor on call, who reviewed and changed the prescription. The patient received the correct dose about 40 minutes late. No harm occurred. I completed an incident report.
At first I felt relieved, and then uneasy. I realised I had nearly drawn up the dose before checking the renal function. I was also anxious about calling the doctor, who was busy, and I worried I would seem slow. Afterwards I felt more confident, because I had trusted my concern and acted on it.
What went well: I stopped, checked and escalated, and the patient was not harmed. I documented clearly and reported the near-miss. What went less well: my check came late in the process. I had started preparing the dose on the assumption that a rewritten chart would be correct. The delay was short but avoidable.
Several factors made the error more likely. Rewriting a chart is a known point where transcription errors creep in. The ward was short of one nurse, and I was interrupted twice during the drug round. I had also stopped checking renal function routinely because most anticoagulant doses I give are standard. Local policy and national patient safety guidance both highlight interruptions and transcription as risk points. The NMC Code expects me to act without delay where there is a risk to safety, and that expectation helped me decide to call despite my hesitation.
I learnt that my safety checks were in the wrong order: I should check prescriptions against weight and kidney function before preparing a dose, not during. I also learnt that hesitation about calling a busy colleague is a risk in itself. I could have asked a colleague to cover my interruptions so I could finish the check.
I now check renal function and weight before preparing any weight- or renal-adjusted medicine. I have started wearing the ward's do-not-disturb tabard during drug rounds. I raised the rewritten-chart issue at the ward safety huddle, and the team agreed a second check for rewritten charts. I will review my practice with my practice supervisor in three months and record it in my portfolio.
What does a weak versus strong Gibbs reflection look like?
The most common problem is not using the wrong model. It is staying at the surface. Compare these two versions of an analysis stage.
The error happened because I was busy and the chart had been rewritten. I will be more careful in future.
Two system factors, a rewritten chart and repeated interruptions, met a personal habit of not checking renal function for routine doses. I have changed the order of my checks, use the do-not-disturb tabard, and raised the rewritten-chart risk at the safety huddle, which led to a team-wide second check.
The strong version names causes, separates personal and system factors, and links each to a specific change. It also shows impact beyond the individual. That is what reviewers usually mean by "insight".
How long should each stage be?
There is no fixed rule, but a useful balance is to keep Description short and give the most space to Analysis and Action plan. Many weak reflections spend most of their words describing the event. Reviewers learn little from that.
| Stage | Rough share of the writing | Common mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Description | Short | Too much detail, or identifiable information |
| Feelings | Short | Skipped, or written as blame |
| Evaluation | Short to medium | Only negatives, or only positives |
| Analysis | Largest | Missing, or just repeats the description |
| Conclusion | Short | Introduces new facts |
| Action plan | Medium | Vague promises such as "be more careful" |
Can I use Gibbs for NMC revalidation, GMC appraisal or HCPC CPD?
Yes. None of the UK regulators insists on one model. The NMC asks nurses, midwives and nursing associates for five written reflective accounts every three years, recorded on its form and linked to the four themes of the Code, followed by a reflective discussion with another NMC registrant. Gibbs works well as a thinking tool behind those accounts, even though the NMC form uses its own headings.
Doctors can use Gibbs for appraisal reflections and significant event write-ups. HCPC registrants can use it for the reflective parts of their CPD profile. The structure matters less than the depth of thinking.
What are the limitations of Gibbs' model?
Gibbs is popular because it is clear. That clarity can also be a weakness. Some practitioners treat the stages as boxes to fill, which produces a long but shallow piece. The model also focuses on a single event, so it is less helpful for patterns over time or for team-level reflection.
- It can become formulaic if you answer each prompt without thinking.
- The Analysis stage asks a lot. Without some reading or discussion it can be thin.
- For a quick reflection, a shorter model such as What? So What? Now What? may suit better.
- It works best when you discuss your reflection with a supervisor or peer, not only write it alone.
Next steps for writing better reflections
If you would like more practice, How to Write a Reflective Account (GMC, NMC, HCPC) covers Gibbs and other models, with feedback on structure and anonymisation. Building Your Professional Portfolio from Day One helps you set up a habit of short, regular reflections so revalidation and appraisal are not a scramble. If your reflection relates to a medicine incident, Medication Errors: Reflection and Remediation takes you through analysis of contributing factors in more depth.
Frequently asked questions
What are the six stages of Gibbs' reflective cycle?
The six stages are Description, Feelings, Evaluation, Analysis, Conclusion and Action plan. You describe what happened, explore what you thought and felt, judge what went well and badly, analyse why, summarise what you learnt, and plan specific changes. The cycle comes from Graham Gibbs' 1988 book Learning by Doing.
Which stage of Gibbs' cycle is most important?
Analysis and Action plan usually carry the most weight. Analysis explains why things happened, using guidance, evidence or discussion with colleagues. The action plan shows what you will change and how. Reviewers often see long descriptions with thin analysis, which gives little evidence of insight.
Can I use Gibbs' reflective cycle for NMC revalidation?
Yes. The NMC does not require a particular model. You need five written reflective accounts on the NMC form, linked to the Code, and a reflective discussion with another NMC registrant. Many nurses use Gibbs to plan their thinking, then write the account under the form's headings.
Should I include feelings in a professional reflection?
Yes, briefly. Feelings often explain why you acted as you did, such as hesitating to call a busy colleague. Naming them shows self-awareness. Keep the focus on learning, avoid blaming others, and do not let this stage take over the reflection.
Is Gibbs' cycle better than Driscoll's model?
Neither is better in general. Gibbs gives more structure and suits a full written reflection on a significant event. Driscoll's What? So What? Now What? is shorter and suits quick reflections or supervision notes. Choose the model that helps you think most clearly about the experience.
How do I anonymise a Gibbs reflection?
Remove names, initials, dates of birth, hospital numbers and exact dates. Describe people by role, such as an older patient or the doctor on call. Avoid unusual details that could identify someone when combined. Focus on your learning rather than a full clinical history.
Related courses
How to Write a Reflective Account (GMC, NMC, HCPC)
This course teaches you how to write reflective accounts that show genuine learning, for appraisal, revalidation, CPD and, where needed, a regulatory…
Building Your Professional Portfolio from Day One
This course shows you how to build a professional portfolio from your first week in a new role, so that appraisal, revalidation, job applications and…
Medication Errors: Reflection and Remediation
This course explains why medication errors happen, what you must do when one occurs, and how to show a regulator or employer that you have understood…
Sources and further reading
- Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods (Gibbs, 1988). Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic.
- Reflective writing: Gibbs' model of reflection. Wrexham University Library.
- Reflective practice guidance for revalidation. Nursing and Midwifery Council.
- Benefits of becoming a reflective practitioner (joint statement). Chief executives of the UK statutory health and care regulators.
- The Code: professional standards of practice and behaviour. Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Practitioner Insight is an independent education provider. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the GMC, MPTS, NMC, HCPC, GPhC or any NHS organisation, and this information is not legal advice. If you have been referred to a regulator, speak to your defence organisation, trade union or legal representative.
More guides
The 'What? So What? Now What?' Reflective Model With Examples
The What? So What? Now What? reflective model (Borton and Driscoll) explained, with prompt questions and healthcare examples for nurses, doctors and AHPs.
How to Write a Reflective Account for NMC Revalidation (With Examples)
How to write a reflective account for NMC revalidation: what the form asks, how many you need, a weak vs strong example, and how to link each one to the Code.
Medication Error Reflection: A Worked Example for Nurses
A medication error reflection example for nurses: what to do first, how to structure your reflection, a weak vs strong version, and how to show real learning.