A number of persistent issues in the nursing diagnosis community have challenged the ability of one nursing diagnosis taxonomy to account for nursing's practice. The North American Nursing Diagnosis Association (NANDA) Taxonomy Committee, charged with the preparation of one taxonomy for all, has struggled with some of these issues and has initiated dcvelopment of axes. The issues, figuratively speaking, become the axes. The axes are intended to describe the dimensions of the human condition. This article, third in a series of four, describes the process and development of the proposed axes.
AllenC. J. (1989). Incorporating a wellness perspective for nursing diagnosis in practice. In Carroll-JohnsonR. M.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the eighth conference (pp. 37–42). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
2.
Carroll-JohnsonR. M.(Ed.) (1991). Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the ninth conference. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
3.
ColerM. S.VincentK. G. (1987). Nursing diagnoses along axes: a clinical interview study of prioritizing nursing diagnoses in psychiatric-mental health settings. In McLaneA. M.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the seventh conference (pp. 360–364). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
4.
FitzpatrickJ. J. (1991). Taxonomy II: definitions and development. In Carroll-JohnsonR. M.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the ninth conference (pp. 23–29). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
5.
FrennM. D.JacobsC. A.LeeH. A.SangerM. T.StrongK. A. (1987). Delphi survey to gain consensus on wellness and health promotion nursing diagnoses. In McLaneA. M.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the seventh conference (pp. 154–159). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
6.
GordonM. (1987). Nursing diagnosis: Process and application (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
7.
HoskinsL. M. (1991). What is the focus of Taxonomy II? Nursing diagnosis axes. In Carroll-JohnsonR. M.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the ninth conference (pp. 35–37). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
8.
KimM. J. (1986). Nursing diagnosis: A Janus view. In HurleyM. E.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the sixth conference (pp. 1–14). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
9.
KritekP. B. (1986). Development of a taxonomic structure for nursing diagnoses: A review and an update. In HurleyM. E.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the sixth conference (pp. 23–38). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
10.
LangN. M.GebbieK. (1989). Nursing taxonomy: NANDA and ANA joint venture toward ICD-10CM. In Carroll-JohnsonR. M.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the eighth conference (pp. 11–17). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
11.
McLaneA. M.(Ed.) (1987). Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the seventh conference. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
12.
North American Nursing Diagnosis Association (1989). Taxonomy I Revised—1989 with Official Diagnostic Categories. St. Louis, MO: Author.
13.
North American Nursing Diagnosis Association (1990). Taxonomy I Revised—1990 with Official Nursing Diagnoses. St. Louis, MO: Author.
14.
Ounce of prevention article. (December 1984). Nursing Diagnosis Newsletter, pp. 4–5.
15.
VincentK. G.ColerM. S. (1989). Evolution of a comprehensive assessment model: A taxonomic perspective. In Carroll-JohnsonR. M.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the eighth conference (pp. 158–164). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
16.
WarrenJ. J. (1991). Implications of introducing axes into a classification system. In Carroll-JohnsonR. M.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnoses: Proceedings of the ninth conference (pp. 45–64). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
