Nursing Intervention Classification Systems

Bowles, Kathy; Naylor, Mary D.

doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.1996.tb00378.x

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They are the Nursing Diagnoses Taxonomy by NANDA (Gebbie & Lavin, 1975), the Omaha System (Martin & Scheet, 1992), the Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC, Iowa Intervention Project (IIP), 1993), the Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC, Johnson & Maas, 1997), the Home Health Care Classification (HHCC, Saba, 1992), Ozbolt's Patient Care Data Set (Ozbolt, Fruchtnight, & Hayden, 1994), and the Perioperative Nursing Data Set (Perioperative Nursing, 1999). These systems and others are in various stages of development and refinement (Bowles & Naylor, 1996;Lang et al, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of the Omaha System in acute care

Bowles

2000

Res. Nurs. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although effective as a standardized language for documentation in community and public health settings, the Omaha System has not been evaluated in acute care settings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of the Omaha System to code the terms used by nurses when documenting hospital care. The nursing documentation in 30 hospital records was content analyzed for signs and symptoms, patient problems, and nursing interventions, then coded into the categories of the Omaha System. Degree of match was evaluated using concept match scores, and utility was determined using empirical, operational, and pragmatic criteria. Study findings suggest several strengths (i.e., high reliability, coded 97% of the problems, easy to use) and some limitations (lack of mutual exclusivity among terms, lack of semantic clarity, the need for three new problems). This study has important implications in demonstrating the utility of the Omaha System for possible expansion into acute care to standardize communication between the hospital setting and home care.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of the Omaha System in acute care

Bowles

2000

Res. Nurs. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the current emphasis on clarifying a nursing language and defining nurse-sensitive outcomes, the need for testing nursing diagnoses and the tools to measure them becomes increasingly important. Bowles and Naylor (1996) describe research to develop a nursing sensitive outcome assessment to contribute to the development of a minimum data set, in which validation of the tools of nursing diagnosis is essential. The instrument development and the baseline scores provide a useful resource for nurses interested in health-service research and clinical issues related to interventions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Powerlessness Regarding Health‐Service Barriers: Construction of an Instrument

Dunn¹

1998

International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classificati

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE.The purpose of the study was to develop a scale to calculate college students' powerlessness regarding health service barriers (PHSB). METHODS.Scale items were generated to represent two domains of interest: powerlessness and college students' powerlessness regarding health service barriers. The final 20‐item instrument was subjected to multiple measures of validity with college students and panels of nurse experts in the area of nursing diagnosis. Reliability was assessed by two samples (n = 92 and n = 33) of college‐age students. A final administration was conducted with 197 college students. FINDINGS.The PHSB scale was determined to be an accurate and consistent measure. CONCLUSIONS.This instrument will provide a reliable and valid measure to conduct research.

show abstract

“…In nursing, this includes skill mix research Ð the association between different levels of nurse education and patient outcomes (Mitchell et al 1998). Other initiatives in the United States have been directed at classifying nursing-sensitive outcomes in a format that complements classi®cation systems for nursing diagnoses and interventions (Martin & Scheet 1995, Bowles & Naylor 1996, Maas et al 1996, Micek et al 1996, Johnson & Maas 1997. In the context of health care restructuring and/or in a managed care system, nursing has been compromized because there are few data on the types of services that nurses provide or on nurses' contribution to patient outcomes (Jones 1997).…”

Section: Professional Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence and outcomes: agendas, presuppositions and power

Ray¹

1999

Journal of Advanced Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores philosophical and methodological issues involved in determining 'What counts as making a meaningful difference?'--the fundamental question in health outcomes research and evidence-based practice. Eight diverse stakeholders are identified along with the competing agendas they bring to the debate. The power to define what counts as meaningful change in health status is typically rooted in disciplinary socialization, linguistic traditions and an orthodox consensus that circumscribes acceptable research foci and methods. The various implicit assumptions and sites of definitional authority have consequences both for health researchers and for the public being served. For researchers, their designs may be driven by available instrumentation, short political time lines, and statistical rather than clinical significance. Because methods to capture salient health outcomes are still being developed, failure to capture significant outcomes may be methodological in origin. The public may experience the consequences of subsequent programmatic funding decisions and the exclusionary potential of different categorization schemes. Despite this, the public seldom has a voice in deciding what constitutes a meaningful health outcome. Researchers are urged to involve their target population in designing studies to help rebalance relative stakeholder power, and to consider the consequences of their methodological decisions.

show abstract

Nursing Intervention Classification Systems

Cited by 16 publications

References 22 publications

Application of the Omaha System in acute care

Application of the Omaha System in acute care

Powerlessness Regarding Health‐Service Barriers: Construction of an Instrument

Evidence and outcomes: agendas, presuppositions and power

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About