Clinical indicators of ineffective airway clearance in children with acute respiratory infection

Effectiveness of a Standardized Nursing Process Using NANDA International, Nursing Interventions Classification and Nursing Outcome Classification Terminologies: A Systematic Review

The decision-making in clinical nursing, regarding diagnoses, interventions and outcomes, can be assessed using standardized language systems such as NANDA International, the Nursing Interventions Classification and the Nursing Outcome Classification; these taxonomies are the most commonly used by nurses in informatized clinical records. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of the nursing process with standardized terminology using the NANDA International, the Nursing Interventions Classification and the Nursing Outcome Classification in care practice to assess the association between the presence of the related/risk factors and the clinical decision-making about nursing diagnosis, assessing the effectiveness of nursing interventions and health outcomes, and increasing people's satisfaction. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and PreMedline (OvidSP), Embase (Embase-Elsevier), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EbscoHOST), SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI and Scielo (WOS), LILACS (Health Virtual Library) and SCOPUS (SCOPUS-Elsevier) and included randomized clinical trials as well as quasi-experimental, cohort and case-control studies. Selection and critical appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Methodology. A total of 17 studies were included with variability in the level and certainty of evidence. According to the outcomes, 6 studies assessed diagnostic decision-making and 11 assessed improvements in individual health outcomes. No studies assessed improvements in intervention effectiveness or population satisfaction. There is a need to increase studies with rigorous methodologies that address clinical decision-making about nursing diagnoses using NANDA International and individuals' health outcomes using the Nursing Interventions Classification and the Nursing Outcome Classification as well as implementing studies that assess the use of these terminologies for improvements in the effectiveness of nurses' interventions and population satisfaction with the nursing process.

Use of standardized terminologies in clinical practice: A scoping review

AIM

To explore the use and impact of standardized terminologies (STs) within nursing and midwifery practice.

INTRODUCTION

The standardization of clinical documentation creates a potential to optimize patient care and safety. Nurses and midwives, who represent the largest proportion of the healthcare workforce worldwide, have been using nursing-specific and multidisciplinary STs within electronic health records (EHRs) for decades. However, little is known regarding ST use and impact within clinical practice.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature was conducted (2019) across PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and CENTRAL in collaboration with the Five Country Nursing and Midwifery Digital Leadership Group (DLG). Identified studies (n = 3547) were reviewed against a number of agreed criterion, and data were extracted from included studies. Studies were categorized and findings were reviewed by the DLG.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty three studies met the inclusion criteria. These were conducted across 25 different countries and in various healthcare settings, utilising mainly nursing-specific (most commonly NANDA-I, NIC, NOC and the Omaha System) and less frequently local, multidisciplinary or medical STs (e.g., ICD). Within the studies, STs were evaluated in terms of Measurement properties, Usability, Documentation quality, Patient care, Knowledge generation, and Education (pre and post registration). As well as the ST content, the impact of the ST on practice depended on the healthcare setting, patient cohort, nursing experience, provision of education and support in using the ST, and usability of EHRs.

CONCLUSION

Employment of STs in clinical practice has the capability to improve communication, quality of care and interoperability, as well as facilitate value-based healthcare and knowledge generation. However, employment of several different STs and study heterogeneity renders it difficult to aggregate and generalize findings.

Clinical respiratory scales: which one should we use?

INTRODUCTION

There are countless clinical respiratory scales for acute dyspnoea. Most healthcare professionals choose one based on previous personal experience or following local practice, unaware of the implications of their choice. The lack of critical comparisons between those different tools has been a widespread problem that only recently has begun to be addressed via score validation studies. Here we try to assess and compare the quality criteria of measurement properties of acute dyspnoea scores. Areas covered: A literature review was conducted by searching the PubMed database. Forty-five documents were deemed eligible as they reported the use or building of clinical scales, using at least two parameters, and applied these to an acute episode of respiratory dyspnoea. Our primary focus was the description of the validity, reliability and utility of 41 suitable scoring instruments. Differences in sample selection, study design, rater profiles and potential methodological shortcomings were also addressed. Expert commentary: All acute dyspnoea scores lack complete validation. In particular, the areas of measurement error and interpretability have not been addressed correctly by any of the tools reviewed. Frequent modification of pre-existing scores (in items composition and/or name), differences in study design and discrepancies in reviewed sources also hinder the search for an adequate tool.