Suppr超能文献

现有美国护士协会认可的标准化护理术语的证据:一项系统评价。

Evidence for the existing American Nurses Association-recognized standardized nursing terminologies: a systematic review.

作者信息

Tastan Sevinc, Linch Graciele C F, Keenan Gail M, Stifter Janet, McKinney Dawn, Fahey Linda, Lopez Karen Dunn, Yao Yingwei, Wilkie Diana J

机构信息

School of Nursing, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey.

Department of Nursing, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.

出版信息

Int J Nurs Stud. 2014 Aug;51(8):1160-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.004. Epub 2013 Dec 18.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine the state of the science for the five standardized nursing terminology sets in terms of level of evidence and study focus.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Keyword search of PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases from 1960s to March 19, 2012 revealed 1257 publications.

REVIEW METHODS

From abstract review we removed duplicate articles, those not in English or with no identifiable standardized nursing terminology, and those with a low-level of evidence. From full text review of the remaining 312 articles, eight trained raters used a coding system to record standardized nursing terminology names, publication year, country, and study focus. Inter-rater reliability confirmed the level of evidence. We analyzed coded results.

RESULTS

On average there were 4 studies per year between 1985 and 1995. The yearly number increased to 14 for the decade between 1996 and 2005, 21 between 2006 and 2010, and 25 in 2011. Investigators conducted the research in 27 countries. By evidence level for the 312 studies 72.4% were descriptive, 18.9% were observational, and 8.7% were intervention studies. Of the 312 reports, 72.1% focused on North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, Nursing Outcome Classification, or some combination of those three standardized nursing terminologies; 9.6% on Omaha System; 7.1% on International Classification for Nursing Practice; 1.6% on Clinical Care Classification/Home Health Care Classification; 1.6% on Perioperative Nursing Data Set; and 8.0% on two or more standardized nursing terminology sets. There were studies in all 10 foci categories including those focused on concept analysis/classification infrastructure (n=43), the identification of the standardized nursing terminology concepts applicable to a health setting from registered nurses' documentation (n=54), mapping one terminology to another (n=58), implementation of standardized nursing terminologies into electronic health records (n=12), and secondary use of electronic health record data (n=19).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings reveal that the number of standardized nursing terminology publications increased primarily since 2000 with most focusing on North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, and Nursing Outcome Classification. The majority of the studies were descriptive, qualitative, or correlational designs that provide a strong base for understanding the validity and reliability of the concepts underlying the standardized nursing terminologies. There is evidence supporting the successful integration and use in electronic health records for two standardized nursing terminology sets: (1) the North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, and Nursing Outcome Classification set; and (2) the Omaha System set. Researchers, however, should continue to strengthen standardized nursing terminology study designs to promote continuous improvement of the standardized nursing terminologies and use in clinical practice.

摘要

目的

根据证据水平和研究重点确定五种标准化护理术语集的科学现状。

设计

系统评价。

数据来源

对PubMed、CINAHL和EMBASE数据库进行关键词检索,检索时间跨度为20世纪60年代至2012年3月19日,共检索到1257篇出版物。

综述方法

通过摘要评审,我们剔除了重复文章、非英文文章或未明确提及标准化护理术语的文章以及证据水平较低的文章。在对其余312篇文章进行全文评审时,8名经过培训的评分者使用编码系统记录标准化护理术语名称、出版年份、国家和研究重点。评分者间信度确定了证据水平。我们对编码结果进行了分析。

结果

1985年至1995年期间平均每年有4项研究。1996年至2005年这十年间,每年的研究数量增至14项,2006年至2010年期间为21项,2011年为25项。研究人员在27个国家开展了此项研究。就这312项研究的证据水平而言,72.4%为描述性研究,18.9%为观察性研究,8.7%为干预性研究。在这312份报告中,72.1%聚焦于北美护理诊断国际版、护理干预分类法、护理结局分类法或这三种标准化护理术语的某种组合;9.6%聚焦于奥马哈系统;7.1%聚焦于国际护理实践分类法;1.6%聚焦于临床护理分类法/家庭健康护理分类法;1.6%聚焦于围手术期护理数据集;8.0%聚焦于两种或更多标准化护理术语集。所有10个重点类别均有相关研究,包括聚焦于概念分析/分类基础架构的研究(n = 43)、从注册护士的文档中识别适用于健康环境的标准化护理术语概念的研究(n = 54)、将一种术语映射到另一种术语的研究(n = 58)、将标准化护理术语应用于电子健康记录的研究(n = 12)以及电子健康记录数据的二次利用研究(n = 19)。

结论

研究结果表明,标准化护理术语出版物数量主要自2000年以来有所增加,其中大部分聚焦于北美护理诊断国际版、护理干预分类法和护理结局分类法。大多数研究为描述性、定性或相关性设计,为理解标准化护理术语背后概念的有效性和可靠性提供了坚实基础。有证据支持两种标准化护理术语集在电子健康记录中的成功整合与应用:(1)北美护理诊断国际版、护理干预分类法和护理结局分类法集;(2)奥马哈系统集。然而,研究人员应继续加强标准化护理术语的研究设计,以促进标准化护理术语的持续改进及其在临床实践中的应用。

相似文献

4
Interventions for preventing abuse in the elderly.预防老年人受虐待的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 16;2016(8):CD010321. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010321.pub2.
9
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

2
Using bibliometrics to support your selection of a nursing terminology set.运用文献计量学来辅助您选择护理术语集。
Comput Inform Nurs. 2009 Mar-Apr;27(2):82-90; quiz 91-2. doi: 10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181972a24.
6
Standardized nursing terminologies can transform practice.标准化护理术语可以改变实践。
J Nurs Adm. 2008 Mar;38(3):103-6. doi: 10.1097/01.NNA.0000310728.50913.de.
7
Is it time for a new category of nursing diagnosis?是时候设立一个新的护理诊断类别了吗?
Int J Nurs Terminol Classif. 2007 Apr-Jun;18(2):45-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-618X.2007.00049.x.
9
Economic evaluations and usefulness of standardized nursing terminologies.标准化护理术语的经济评估及实用性
Int J Nurs Terminol Classif. 2004 Oct-Dec;15(4):101-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-618x.2004.tb00007.x.
10
Clinical care costing method for the Clinical Care Classification System.临床护理分类系统的临床护理成本核算方法。
Int J Nurs Terminol Classif. 2004 Jul-Sep;15(3):69-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-618x.2004.tb00002.x.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验