PURPOSE. To describe pilot testing of Quality of Diagnoses, Interventions and Outcomes (Q-DIO), an instrument to measure quality of nursing documentation.
DESIGN. Instrument testing was performed using a random, stratified sample of 60 nursing documentations representing hospital nursing with and without implementation of standardized nursing language (30 for both strata) in a Swiss General Acute Hospital.
METHODS. Internal consistency and intrarater and interrater reliabilities were tested. Through item analyses, the grades of difficulty and the discrimination validity of items were evaluated.
FINDINGS. Internal consistency of nursing diagnoses as process produced Cronbach's alpha .83; nursing diagnoses as product .98; nursing interventions .90; and nursing-sensitive patient outcomes .99. With Kappas of .95, the intrarater and interrater reliabilities were good. Criteria for the grades of difficulty of items and discrimination validity were well met.
The results of this study suggest that Q-DIO is a reliable instrument to measure the documentation quality of nursing diagnoses, interventions, and outcomes. Further testing of Q-DIO in other settings is recommended.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllemannK.FreiG.OdenbreitM.RudinB. (2003). Leitfaden zur Pflegebedarfserfassung (PBE) im Pflegedienst des Bürgerspitals Solothurn. Solothurn: Bürgerspitalo. Document Number.
2.
AllemannK.LeuenbergerK.FreiG.RudinB. (2003). Standard Pflegebedarfserfassung (PBE) im Bürgerspital Solothurn. Solothurn: Bürgerspitalo. Document Number.
3.
BakkenS.HolzemerW. L.PortilloC.GrimesR.WelchJ.WantlandD. (2005). Utility of a standardized nursing terminology to evaluate dosage and tailoring of an HIV/AIDS adherence intervention. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(3), 251–257.
4.
BeyeaS. C. (1999). Standardized language—Making nursing practice count. AORN Journal, 70(5), 831–834. 837–838.
5.
BjörwellC.Thorell-EkstrandI.WredlingR. (2000). Development of an audit instrument for nursing care plans in the patient record. Quality in Health Care, 9, 6–13.
6.
BortzJ. (1999). Statistik für Sozialwissenschaftler. Berlin: Springer.
7.
BostickJ. E.RiggsC. J.RantzM. J. (2003). Quality measurement in nursing. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 18(2), 94–104.
8.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. InPsychometrica(Ed.), 16, 297–334.
9.
CurrellR.UrquhartC. (2003). Nursing record systems: Effects on nursing practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Review3(CD002099).
10.
DelaneyC.HerrK.MaasM.SpechtJ. (2000). Reliability of nursing diagnoses documented in a computerized nursing information system. Nursing Diagnosis, 11(3), 121–134.
11.
DobrzynJ. (1995). Components of written nursing diagnostic statements. Nursing Diagnosis, 6, 29–36.
12.
DochtermanJ.BulechekG. M.(Eds.). (2004). Nursing Interventions Classification NIC. St. Louis: Mosby.
13.
DoengesM. E.MoorhouseM. F.MurrA. C. (2004). Nurse's pocket guide: Diagnoses, prioritized interventions, and rationales(10th ed.). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
14.
DukesK. A. (1998). Internal consistency. InArmitageP.ColtonT.(Eds.), Encyclopedia of biostatistics (Vol. 2, pp. 1026–1228). Chichester: Wiley.
15.
GordonM. (1994). Nursing diagnosis: Process and application(3rd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
18.
IyerP. W.TaptichB. J.Bernocci-LoseyD. (1995). Nursing process and nursing diagnosis(1st ed.). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
19.
JohnsonM.BulechekG.ButcherH.McCloskey DochtermannJ.MaasM.MoorheadS., et al. (2006). NANDA, NOC and NIC linkages: Nursing diagnoses, outcomes, & interventions(2nd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
20.
KruegerR. A.CaseyM. A.(Eds.). (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research(3rd ed.). London: Sage.
21.
LilienfeldD. E.StolleyP. D. (1994). Foundations of epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
LunneyM. (2006). Helping nurses use NANDA, NOC, and NIC. Jona, 36(3), 118–125.
23.
MizeC. P.BentleyG.HubbardS. (1991). Standards of care: Integrating nursing care plans and quality assurance activities. AACN Clinical Issues, 2(1), 63–68.
24.
MoorheadS.JohnsonM.MaasM. L. (2003). Nursing outcomes classification(3rd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.
25.
Müller StaubM. (2007). Evaluation of the implementation of nursing diagnostics. Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
26.
Müller-StaubM. (2001). Qualität der Pflegediagnostik und Patientinnen-Zufriedenheit: Eine Literaturübersicht. Pflege: Die wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Pflegeberufe, 14(4), 230–238.
27.
Müller-StaubM. (2003). Entwicklung eines Instruments zur Messung pflegediagnostischer Qualität. Printernet: Die wissenschaftliche Fachzeitschrift für die Pflege, 5(5), 21–33.
28.
Müller-StaubM.LavinM. A.NeedhamI.Van AchterbergT. (2006). Nursing diagnoses, interventions and outcomes—Application and impact on nursing practice: A systematic literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(5), 514–531.
29.
Müller-StaubM.NeedhamI.OdenbreitM.LavinM. A.Van AchterbergT. (2007). Improved quality of nursing documentation: Results of a nursing diagnoses, interventions and outcomes implementation study. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications, 18(1), 5–17.
NANDA International. (2006). History and historical highlights 1973 through 1998. Retrieved 04/18, 2006, from http://www.nanda.org/index.html
32.
NeedhamI. (1990). Ansichten und Meinungen zum Pflegeprozess: Eine hermeneutische Untersuchung von Aussagen in Fachschriftenartikeln. Pflege, die wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Pflegeberufe, 3(1), 59–67.
33.
NeedhamI. (2003). Kriterien zur Überprüfung von Pflegeplänen. Krankenpflege, 96(6), 28.
34.
PolitD. F.Tatano BeckC. (2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods(7th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
