PURPOSE. This study aims to examine the taxonomy of NANDA International Nursing Diagnoses: Definitions and Classification 2007–2008 for domain completeness and ontological homogeneity of the hierarchical structure.
METHODS. The taxonomy was analyzed using nursing theories representative of different paradigms and included descriptions of the theories, categorization, and systems of concepts regarding patient phenomena.
FINDINGS. At present the taxonomy does not meet the criteria for domain completeness because the domain level is not all-inclusive. There are also problems regarding affiliation and natural relationships between domains and class level. Furthermore, some of the concepts seem misplaced in the taxonomic structure.
CONCLUSIONS. The taxonomy should be restructured to establish domain completeness and an appropriate ontological correspondence among domains, classes, and concepts.
HENSIKT. Å undersøke om taksonomien til NANDA International Nursing Diagnoses: Definitions and Classification 2007–2008 dekker sykepleiens gjenstandsområde og om den hierarkiske strukturen i taksonomien er ontologisk homogen.
METODE. Taksonomien ble analysert ved hjelp av sykepleieteorier som representerer forskjellige paradigmer i sykepleie, deres beskrivelser, kategoriseringer og begrepsbruk i forhold til pasientfenomener.
FUNN. På nåværende tidspunkt dekker ikke taksonomien sykepleiens gjenstandsområde fullt ut fordi kategoriseringen ikke er uttømmende på domenenivå. Det er også problemer knyttet til slektskap og naturlig relasjon mellom domene-og klassenivået i taksonomien. Videre ser noen begreper ut til å være plassert feil i taksonomien.
KONKLUSJON. Taksonomien bør restruktureres slik at den dekker sykepleiens gjenstandsområde fullt ut og slik at den hierarkiske strukturen oppnår tilfredstillende ontologisk homogenitet.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Nurses Association. (1989). Classification systems for describing nursing practice(ANA working paper). Silver Spring, MD: Author.
2.
BennerP.WrübelJ. (1989). The primacy of caring, stress, and coping in health and illness. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
3.
Carroll-JohnsonR.PaquetteM. (1991). Classification of nursing diagnoses. Philadelphia: Lippincott Company.
4.
ChinnP.CramerM. K. (1999). Theory and nursing. Integrated knowledge development(4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
5.
ErikssonK. (2006). The suffering human being. Chicago: Nordic Studies Press.
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.
GordonM. (1994). Nursing diagnosis, process and application(3rd ed.). St Louis, MO: Mosby.
Nursecom. (2004). A book of abstracts: Working together for quality nursing care: Striving toward harmonization. Chicago: Nursecom.
18.
OremD. (2001). Nursing concepts of practice(6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
19.
PedersenS. A. (2001). Klassifikasjon som filosofisk begrep. IGjengedadalE.JacobsenR.(red.), Sykepleie, praksis og utvikling [Classification as philosophical concept. InGjengedadalE.JacobsenR.(Eds.), Nursing, practice and development ] Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Akademisk.
20.
PeplauH. (1952). Interpersonal theory in nursing practice. New York: Springer.
21.
RogersM. (1980). A science of unitary man. InRiehlJ. P.RoyC.(Eds.), Conceptual models for nursing practice, 2nd ed. New York: Appleton–Century-Crofts.
22.
RogersM. (1989). Creating a climate for the implementation of a nursing conceptual framework. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 20(3), 112–116.
23.
RørvikH. (1994). Læring og utvikling: Det pedagogiske oppdraget [Learning and Development: The pedagogic mission]. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
24.
RosenbloomS. T.MillerR. A.JohnsonK. B.ElkinP. L.BrownS. H. (2006). Interface terminologies: Facilitating direct entry of clinical data into electronic health record systems. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13(3), 277–288.
25.
RoyC.AndrewsH. A. (1999). The Roy adaptation model. Stamford, CT: Appleton and Lange.
26.
TravelbeeJ. (1971). Interpersonal aspects of nursing. New York: Davis Company.
27.
Von KroghG.DaleC. (2001). Klassifikasjonssystemer i sykepleie. IGjengedalE.JacobsenR.(red.)Sykepleie, praksis og utvikling [Classification Systems in Nursing. InGjengedalE.JacobsenR.(Eds.), Nursing practice and development], Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Akademisk.
28.
Von KroghG.DaleC.NådenD. (2005). A framework for integrating NANDA, NIC and NOC terminologies in electronic patient record. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(3), 275–281.
