Müller-Staub Maria, Lavin Mary Ann, Needham Ian, van Achterberg Theo
Pflege PBS, Stettlerstrasse 15, CH 3006 Bern, Switzerland.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2007 Jul;44(5):702-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.02.001. Epub 2006 Mar 23.
Few studies described nursing diagnosis classification criteria and how classifications meet these criteria.
The purpose was to identify criteria for nursing diagnosis classifications and to assess how these criteria are met by different classifications.
DESIGN/METHODS: First, a literature review was conducted (N=50) to identify criteria for nursing diagnoses classifications and to evaluate how these criteria are met by the International Classification of Nursing Practice (ICNP), the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), the International Nursing Diagnoses Classification (NANDA), and the Nursing Diagnostic System of the Centre for Nursing Development and Research (ZEFP). Using literature review based general and specific criteria, the principal investigator evaluated each classification, applying a matrix. Second, a convenience sample of 20 nursing experts from different Swiss care institutions answered standardized interview forms, querying current national and international classification state and use.
The first general criterion is that a diagnosis classification should describe the knowledge base and subject matter for which the nursing profession is responsible. ICNP) and NANDA meet this goal. The second general criterion is that each class fits within a central concept. The ICF and NANDA are the only two classifications built on conceptually driven classes. The third general classification criterion is that each diagnosis possesses a description, diagnostic criteria, and related etiologies. Although ICF and ICNP describe diagnostic terms, only NANDA fulfils this criterion. The analysis indicated that NANDA fulfilled most of the specific classification criteria in the matrix. The nursing experts considered NANDA to be the best-researched and most widely implemented classification in Switzerland and internationally.
The international literature and the opinion of Swiss expert nurses indicate that-from the perspective of classifying comprehensive nursing diagnoses-NANDA should be recommended for nursing practice and electronic nursing documentation. Study limitations and future research needs are discussed.
很少有研究描述护理诊断分类标准以及这些分类如何符合这些标准。
目的是确定护理诊断分类标准,并评估不同分类如何符合这些标准。
设计/方法:首先,进行了一项文献综述(N = 50),以确定护理诊断分类标准,并评估国际护理实践分类(ICNP)、国际功能、残疾与健康分类(ICF)、国际护理诊断分类(NANDA)以及护理发展与研究中心的护理诊断系统(ZEFP)如何符合这些标准。使用基于文献综述的一般和具体标准,主要研究者应用矩阵对每个分类进行评估。其次,从瑞士不同护理机构抽取了20名护理专家组成便利样本,他们回答了标准化访谈表格,询问当前国家和国际分类状况及使用情况。
第一个一般标准是诊断分类应描述护理专业所负责的知识库和主题内容。ICNP和NANDA符合这一目标。第二个一般标准是每个类别都符合一个核心概念。ICF和NANDA是仅有的两个基于概念驱动类别构建的分类。第三个一般分类标准是每个诊断都有描述、诊断标准和相关病因。虽然ICF和ICNP描述了诊断术语,但只有NANDA符合这一标准。分析表明,NANDA符合矩阵中的大多数具体分类标准。护理专家认为NANDA是瑞士和国际上研究最多、应用最广泛的分类。
国际文献和瑞士专家护士的意见表明,从综合护理诊断分类的角度来看,应推荐NANDA用于护理实践和电子护理记录。讨论了研究局限性和未来研究需求。