Nurses' Wisdom in Action in the Emergency Department

Use and Significance of Nursing Diagnosis in Hospital Emergencies: A Phenomenological Approach

Background: Professional nursing organizations recommend the use of nursing diagnosis to enhance and facilitate the standardization of care and the development of a common language used by nursing practitioners. In the clinical reality of hospital emergency departments, however, its use is controversial. The objectives of the research are (a) to explore the use of nursing diagnosis in hospital emergency departments, and (b) to describe the meaning of nursing diagnosis for hospital emergency nurses. Methods: A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted. A purposeful sampling and snowball technique were used. Data were collected using in-depth interviews, researchers’ field notes, and documental analysis. An inductive analysis based on Giorgi´s proposal was used to identify significant emerging themes from interviews and field notes. Seventeen participants with a mean age of 40 were recruited. Results: Three themes were identified. The results showed how the use of nursing diagnosis in hospital emergency departments depends on nurses to apply a working methodology in their practice, along with other dimensions such as the characteristics of emergency care, the type of health problems, and the complexity of care. Conclusions: The use of standardized language in emergency departments is complex due to the overcrowded nature of care in these settings.

Barriers and facilitators involved in standardised care plan individualisation process in acute hospitalisation wards: A grounded theory approach

OBJECTIVE

To identify and classify the barriers and facilitators of the individualisation process of the standardised care plan in hospitalisation wards.

BACKGROUND

The administration of individualised care is one of the features of the nursing process. Care plans are the structured record of the diagnosis, planning and evaluation stages of the nursing process. Although the creation of standardised care plan has made recording easier, it is still necessary to record the individualisation of the care. It is important to study the elements that influence the individualisation process from the nurses' perspective.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with the grounded theory approach developed by Strauss and Corbin.

METHODS

Thirty-nine nurses from three hospitals participated by way of theoretical sampling. In-depth interviews were conducted, as well as participant observation, document analysis and focus group discussion. The analysis consisted of open, axial and selective coding until data saturation was reached. EQUATOR guidelines for qualitative research (COREQ) were applied.

RESULTS

For both barriers and facilitators, three thematic categories emerged related to organisational, professional and individual aspects. The identified barriers included routines acquired in the wards, the tradition of narrative records, lack of knowledge and limited interest in individualisation. The identified facilitators included holding clinical care sessions, use of standardised care plan and an interface terminology, the nurse's expertise and willingness to individualise.

CONCLUSION

The individualisation process of the standardised care plan involves multiple barriers and facilitators, which influence its degree of accuracy.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Implementing strategies at an organisational level, professional level and individual level to improve the way the process is carried out would encourage individualising the standardised care plan in a manner that is consistent with the needs of the patient and family; it would improve the quality of care and patient satisfaction.

Selecting a Grounded Theory Approach for Nursing Research

Grounded theory is a commonly used research methodology. There are three primary approaches to grounded theory in nursing research: those espoused by Glaser, Strauss and Corbin, and Charmaz. All three approaches use similar procedures, yet there are important differences among them, which implies that researchers need to make careful choices when using grounded theory. Researchers new to grounded theory need to find the most appropriate approach that fits their research field, topic, and researcher position. In this article, we compare the three grounded theory approaches. Choices of a grounded theory approach will depend on the researcher's understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of all three approaches. Practical aspects of grounded theory approaches should match the information processing styles and analytical abilities of the researcher and the intended use of the theory. We illustrate key aspects of decision making about which method to select by drawing upon the first author's experiences in his doctoral research.