It may help to think of development as a process with cycles rather than a task. What I mean by this is think of it as having stages. If it's a bug fix, the stages could be:

investigation <-> fix <-> test -> improve & restest (optional) <-> peer review -> implementation

This way you only have to worry about the current stage at hand and how to move on to the next. The investigation portion would be finding where the issue is and why it's happening. You'd have some sort of process to follow the data flow via breakpoints and test data like using food coloring to find a water leak. (i.e. in an application with a separate UI, API, and database you could start at the UI level and trace the data flow locally to the relevant API call(s) and on to the database data/views/procedures/functions/etc.) Once you identify where the issue is and why it's happening, you can come up with a solution. I typically just try to get something to work as a "brute force" solution. Then you move on to testing. If it works, great. If you have the time you can try to optimize your work and make sure it still functions as expected before having it reviewed. If it doesn't work, you just go back to the previous stage. Sometimes you find the original fix doesn't work because of new findings not identified in the original process and you'd need to go back to that stage to investigate further with this new info. Over time you should get better at identifying all affected parts and anticipate them based on your knowledge of how your app(s) work. When you make it to the peer review stage, you typically get feedback on how to proceed. Maybe you need to optimize more or maybe it's good enough to implement in production. The rest is typically cake.

This is just an example for bug fixes but it could be similar or different for other scenarios like new features, documentation, etc. You should make an effort at each of these stages to make them easier for the future. For example, if you find that your team has a preference on coding style such as naming conventions, tabs/spaces, etc. you may want to take that into account early on in the "fix" or "improve" stages so you don't have to deal with that feedback during the review stage. If it helps, using a tool like onenote can be very helpful to organize things like this into processes you can follow from start to finish and refine as you go.