PURPOSES. To measure nurses’ diagnostic competencies by using written case studies and to analyze factors influencing these competencies.
METHODS. A descriptive study was conducted using survey methods and a mailed questionnaire with a convenience sample of 376 nurses. Two written case studies were used to measure the diagnostic competencies of the subjects. Possible factors influencing nurses’ judgments in making nursing diagnoses that were measured were clinical experience, decision-making responsibility, knowledge of nursing diagnosis, and attitude toward the use of nursing diagnosis.
FINDINGS. Subjects who demonstrated all three competencies were 35% (n = 131) for case study 1, and 53% (n = 200) for case study 2. Subjects who demonstrated diagnostic competency in defining diagnostic labels had the longest length of clinical experience. Subjects who were primary nurses with the usual responsibility of identifying nursing diagnoses showed the highest percentage of competency rates for defining characteristics, related factors, and risk factors.
CONCLUSIONS. Many of these Japanese nurses did not perform at satisfactory levels of diagnostic competency with these two written case studies. Factors that influenced diagnostic competency were length of clinical experience, decision-making responsibility, and frequency of studying nursing diagnosis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
2.
Carlson-CatalanoJ. (2001). A teaching method for diagnostic skill development. InLunneyM.(Ed.), Critical thinking and nursing diagnosis: Case studies and analysis(pp. 44–65). Philadelphia: NANDA International.
3.
CarnevaliD.ThomasM. D. (1993). Diagnostic reasoning and treatment decision making in nursing. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
4.
CruzD. A. L.ArcuriA. M. (1998). The influence of nursing diagnosis on information processing by undergraduate students. Nursing Diagnosis, 9(3), 93–100.
5.
EhnforsM.Smedby.B. (1993). Nursing care as documented in patient records. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Science, 7, 209–220.
6.
FlorinJ.EhrenbergA.EhnforsM. (2005). Quality of nursing diagnoses: Evaluation of an educational intervention. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications, 16(2), 33–43.
7.
FowlerL. P. (1997). Clinical reasoning strategies used during care planning. Clinical Nursing Research, 6(4), 349–361.
8.
FujimuraR. (2000). Jissenn wo hoko zukeru kango shindan [Nursing diagnosis as a direction of nursing practice]. Journal of Japan Society of Nursing Diagnosis, 1(5), 6–14.
9.
GordonM. (1994). Nursing diagnosis: Process and application(3rd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
10.
HasegawaT.OhkitaM.OgasawaraC. (2005). Analysis of nursing diagnosis accuracy and difficulty based on consistency of diagnostic labels, related factors, and nursing goals. Journal of Japan Society of Nursing Diagnosis, 10(2), 265–266.
11.
HelmerO. (1983). Looking forward: A guide to future research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
HiguchiK. A. S.DonaldJ. G. (2002). Thinking processes used by nurses in clinical decision making. Journal of Nursing Education, 41(4), 145–154.
13.
HoffmanK.DuffieldC.DonoghueJ. (2004). Barriers to clinical decision-making in nurses in Australia. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21(3), 8–13.
14.
KodamaK. (1994). Continuing education in nursing in Japan. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 25(2), 52–56.
15.
KonnoR.EmotoA.SuzukiK.OtakeY. (1999). A study on accuracy of nursing diagnoses: The first report investigation of a pre-educational program. Journal of Japan Society of Nursing Diagnosis, 4(2), 79–80.
16.
KurodaY.NojimaR.OdaM.KikuchiT.ChikadaK.NakagiT.et al. (2001). A survey of education of nursing diagnosis in curricula of baccalaureate and graduate program of nursing. Journal of Japan Society of Nursing Diagnosis, 6(1), 112–119.
17.
KurodaY.OdaM.KikuchiT.TanahashiY.NakagiT. (2003). The frequency of NANDA's nursing diagnoses in Japan. Journal of Japan Society of Nursing Diagnosis, 8(1), 6–14.
18.
LunneyM. (1992). Divergent productive thinking factors and accuracy of nursing diagnoses. Research in Nursing and Health, 15, 303–311.
19.
LunneyM. (1998). Where are we now? Accuracy of nurses’ diagnoses: Foundation of NANDA, NIC and NOC. Nursing Diagnosis, 9(2), 83–85.
20.
LunneyM. (2001). Critical thinking and nursing diagnosis: Case studies and analyses. Philadelphia: NANDA International.
21.
LunneyM. (2003). Critical thinking and accuracy of nurses’ diagnoses. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications, 14(3), 96–107.
22.
LunneyM. (2006). Helping nurses use NANDA, NOC, and NIC: Novice to expert. Nurse Educator, 31(1), 40–46.
23.
LunneyM.KrenzM. (1994). An instrument to measure attitude toward nursing diagnosis. InCarroll-JohnsonR. M.(Ed.), Classification of nursing diagnosis: Proceedings of the tenth conference(pp. 389–390). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
24.
LunneyM.ParadisoC. (1995). Accuracy of interpreting human responses. Nursing Management, 26(10), 48H–48K.
O’NeillE. S. (1995). Heuristics reasoning in diagnostic judgment. Journal of Professional Nursing, 11(4), 239–245.
27.
OlivaA. P. V.De Almeida LopesD.VolpatoM. P.HayashiA. A. M. (2005). Positions on nursing diagnosis: Attitudes of nurses and nursing students. ACTA Paulista de Enfermagem, 18(4), 361–367.
28.
SatoS. (2000). Context validation of twelve NANDA diagnoses in Japan. Journal of Japan Society of Nursing Diagnosis, 5(1), 2000.
29.
WangJ.LoC. K.KuY. (2004). Problem solving strategies integrated into nursing process to promote clinical problem solving abilities of RN-BSN students. Nurse Education Today, 24(8), 589–595.
