PURPOSE. To describe how nursing specialty knowledge is demonstrated in nursing records by use of standardized nursing languages.
METHODS. A cross-sectional review of nursing records (N = 265) in four specialties.
FINDINGS. The most common nursing diagnoses represented basic human needs of patients across specialties. The nursing diagnoses and related interventions represented specific knowledge in each specialty. Sixty-three nursing diagnoses (nine appeared in four specialties) and 168 nursing interventions were used (24 appeared in four specialties).
CONCLUSIONS. Findings suggest that standardized nursing languages are capable of distinguishing between specialties. Further studies with large data sets are needed to explore the relationships between nursing diagnoses and nursing interventions in order to make explicit the knowledge that nurses use in their nursing practice.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS. Nursing data in clinical practice must be stored and retrievable to support clinical decision making, advance nursing knowledge, and the unique perspective of nursing.
AmmenwerthE.KutschaU.KutschaA.MahlerC.EichstädterR.HauxR. (2001). Nursing process documentation systems in clinical routine—Prerequisites and experiences. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 64, 187–200.
2.
BjörvellC.WredlingR.Thorell-EkstrandI. (2003). Prerequisites and consequences of nursing dodumentation in patient records as perceived by a group of registered nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12, 206–214.
3.
BlegenM. A.Tripp-ReimerT. (1997). Implications of nursing taxonomies for middle-range theory development. Advances in Nursing Science, 19(3), 37–49.
4.
BurkhartL.AndrowichI. (2004). Measuring the domain completeness of the Nursing Interventions Classification in parish nurse documentation. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 22(2), 72–82.
5.
CourtensA. M.Abu-SaadH. H. (1998). Nursing diagnoses in patients with leukemia. Nursing Diagnosis, 9(2), 49–61.
6.
DarmerM. R.AnkersenL.NielsenB. G.LandbergerG.LippertE.EgerodI. (2006). Nursing documentation audit—The effect of a VIPS implementation programme in Denmark. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 15, 525–534.
7.
De Fatima LucenaA.De BarrosA. L. B. L. (2006). Nursing diagnoses in a Brazilian intensive care unit. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications, 17(3), 139–146.
8.
DelaneyC.MoorheadS. (1995). The Nursing Minimum Data Set, standardized language, and health care quality. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 10(1), 16–30.
9.
DochtermanJ.TitlerM.WangJ.ReedD.PettitD.Mathew-WilsonM., . . . KanakM. (2005). Describing use of nursing interventions for three groups of patients. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(1), 57–66.
10.
EhrenbergA.EhnforsM. (1999). Patient problems, needs, and nursing diagnoses in Swedish nursing home records. Nursing Diagnosis, 10(2), 65–76.
11.
KeenanG.BarkauskasV.StockerJ.JohnsonM.MaasM.MoorheadS.ReedD. (2003). Establishing the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of NOC in an adult care nurse practitioner setting. Outcomes Management, 7(2), 74–83.
12.
KeenanG.FalanS.HeathC.TrederM. (2003). Establishing competency in the use of North American Nursing Diagnosis Association, Nursing Outcomes Classification, and Nursing Interventions Classification Terminology. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 11(2), 183–198.
13.
KeenanG.StockerJ.BarkauskasV.TrederM.HeathC. (2003). Toward collecting a standardized nursing data set across the continuum: case of adult care nurse practitioner setting. Outcomes Management, 7(3), 113–120.
14.
KingV. M.ChardM. E.ElliotT. (1997). Utilization of nursing diagnosis in three Australian hospitals. Nursing Diagnosis, 8(3), 99–109.
15.
Von KroghG.DaleC.NådenD. (2005). A framework for integrating NANDA, NIC, and NOC terminology in electronic patient records. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(3), 275–281.
16.
LunneyM. (2006). NANDA diagnoses, NIC interventions, and NOC outcomes used in an electronic health record with elementary school children. Journal of School Nursing, 22(2), 94–101.
17.
MaasM. L.DelaneyC. (2004). Nursing process outcome relationship research. Issues, current status, and health policy implications. Medical Care, 42(2 Suppl.), II40–II48.
18.
OgasawaraC.HasegawaT.KumeY.TakahashiI.KatayamaY.FuruhashiY., . . . TanabeM. (2005). Nursing diagnoses and interventions of Japanese patients with end-stage breast cancer admitted for different care purposes. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications, 16(3–4), 54–64.
19.
PurkisM. E.BjornsdottirK. (2006). Intelligent nursing: Accounting for knowledge as action in practice. Nursing Philosphy, 7, 247–256.
20.
Sorrells-JonesJ. (1999). The role of the chief nurse executive in the knowledge-intense organization of the future. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 23(3), 17–25.
21.
ThoroddsenA.EhnforsM. (2007). Putting policy into practice: Pre- and post-tests of implementing standardized languages for nursing documentation. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(10), 1826–1838.
22.
ThoroddsenA.ThorsteinssonH. S. (2002). Nursing diagnosis taxonomy across the Atlantic Ocean: Congruence between nurses' charting and the NANDA taxonomy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(4), 372–381.
23.
WeisD.SchankM. J. (2000). Use of a taxonomy to describe parish nurse practice with older adults. Geriatric Nursing, 21(3), 125–130.
