Objective To determine the state of the science for the five standardized nursing terminology sets in terms of level of evidence and study focus. Design Systematic Review. Data sources Keyword search of PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases from 1960s to March 19, 2012 revealed 1,257 publications. Review Methods From abstract review we removed duplicate articles, those not in English or with no identifiable standardized nursing terminology, and those with a low-level of evidence. From full text review of the remaining 312 articles, eight trained raters used a coding system to record standardized nursing terminology names, publication year, country, and study focus. Inter-rater reliability confirmed the level of evidence. We analyzed coded results. Results On average there were 4 studies per year between 1985 and 1995. The yearly number increased to 14 for the decade between 1996–2005, 21 between 2006–2010, and 25 in 2011. Investigators conducted the research in 27 countries. By evidence level for the 312 studies 72.4% were descriptive, 18.9% were observational, and 8.7% were intervention studies. Of the 312 reports, 72.1% focused on North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, Nursing Outcome Classification, or some combination of those three standardized nursing terminologies; 9.6% on Omaha System; 7.1% on International Classification for Nursing Practice; 1.6% on Clinical Care Classification/Home Health Care Classification; 1.6% on Perioperative Nursing Data Set; and 8.0% on two or more standardized nursing terminology sets. There were studies in all 10 foci categories including those focused on concept analysis/classification infrastructure (n = 43), the identification of the standardized nursing terminology concepts applicable to a health setting from registered nurses’ documentation (n = 54), mapping one terminology to another (n = 58), implementation of standardized nursing terminologies into electronic health records (n = 12), and secondary use of electronic health record data (n = 19). Conclusions Findings reveal that the number of standardized nursing terminology publications increased primarily since 2000 with most focusing on North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, and Nursing Outcome Classification. The majority of the studies were descriptive, qualitative, or correlational designs that provide a strong base for understanding the validity and reliability of the concepts underlying the standardized nursing terminologies. There is evidence supporting the successful integration and use in electronic health records for two standardized nursing terminology sets: (1) the North American Nursing Diagnosis-International, Nursing Interventions Classification, and Nursing Outcome Classification set; and (2) the Omaha System set. Researchers, however, should continue to strengthen standardized nursing terminology study designs to promote continuous improvement of the standardized nursing terminologies and use in clin...

No abstract

Objectives Pain is the hallmark symptom of sickle cell disease (SCD), yet the types of pain that these patients experience, and the underlying mechanisms, have not been well characterized. The study purpose was to determine the safety and utility of a mechanical and thermal quantitative sensory testing (QST) protocol and the feasibility of utilizing neuropathic pain questionnaires among adults with SCD. Methods A convenience sample (N=25, 18 women, mean age 38.5 ± 12.5 [20–58 years]) completed self-report pain and quality-of-life tools. Subjects also underwent testing with the TSA-II NeuroSensory Analyzer and calibrated von Frey microfilaments. Results We found that the QST protocol was safe and did not stimulate a SCD pain crisis. There was evidence of central sensitization (n=15), peripheral sensitization (n=1), a mix of central and peripheral sensitization (n=8), or no sensitization (n=1). The neuropathic pain self-report tools were feasible with evidence of construct validity; 40% of the subjects reported S-LANSS scores that were indicative of neuropathic pain and had evidence of central, peripheral or mixed sensitization. Discussion The QST protocol can be safely conducted in adults with SCD and provides evidence of central or peripheral sensitization, which is consistent with a neuropathic component to SCD pain. These findings are novel, warrant a larger confirmatory study, and indicate the need for normative QST data from African American adults and older adults.

Objective To test the hypothesis that HANDS “big picture summary” can be implemented uniformly across diverse settings and result in positive RN and plan of care (POC) data outcomes across time. Design In a longitudinal, multi-site, full test design, a representative convenience sample of 8 medical-surgical units from 4 hospitals (1 university, 2 large community, and 1 small community) in one Midwestern state implemented the HANDS intervention for 24 (4 units) or 12 (4 units) months. Measurements 1) RN outcomes - percentage completing training, satisfaction with standardized terminologies, perception of HANDS usefulness, POC submission compliance rate. 2) POC data outcomes – validity (rate of optional changes/episode); reliability of terms and ratings; and volume of standardized data generated. Results 100% of the RNs who worked on the 8 study units successfully completed the required standardized training; all units selected participated for the entire 12- or 24-month designated period; compliance rates for POC entry at every patient handoff were 78% to 92%; reliability coefficients for use of the standardized terms and ratings were moderately strong; the pattern of optional POC change per episode declined but remained reasonable across time; the nurses generated a database of 40,747 episodes of care. Limitations Only RNs and medical-surgical units participated. Conclusion It is possible to effectively standardize the capture and visualization of useful “big picture” healthcare information across diverse settings. Findings offer a viable alternative to the current practice of introducing new health information layers that ultimately increase the complexity and inconsistency of information for front line users.