The Impact of Standardized Nursing Terminology
whinny
Article3.docxAuthors:
Tastan, Sevinc a Linch, Graciele C.F. b Keenan, Gail M. c Stifter, Janet c McKinney, Dawn d Fahey, Linda c Lopez, Karen Dunn c Yao, Yingwei d Wilkie, Diana J. d, ⁎
Affiliation:
a School of Nursing, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Ankara, Turkey b Department of Nursing, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil c Department of Health System Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States d Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States
Source:
In International Journal of Nursing Studies August 2014 51(8):1160-1170
Publisher:
Elsevier Ltd
Keywords:
Nursing diagnosis Terminology Electronic health record Systematic review
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.
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.
Document Type:
Article
ISSN:
0020-7489
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.12.004
Accession Number:
S0020748913003817
Copyright:
Copyright © 2013 The Authors Published by Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
Database:
ScienceDirect
