medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-2961 (Print)

2019, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Cuba Enf 2019; 35 (4)

Cross-mapping of Related and Risk Factors of NANDA-I with those of the International Classification of Diseases

Rodríguez-Suárez CA, Hernández-y de Luis MN, Mariscal-Crespo MI

Language: English
References: 22
Page: 1-14
PDF size: 379.33 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Nursing develops its activity in a multidisciplinary setting where the autonomous sphere and that of other professionals are mixed, while diagnostic competence is paramount. NANDA-International is the most widely used nurse classification, while the International Classification of Diseases is the reference for medical problems. Occasionally, the related factors/risk of NANDA-International coincide with medical diagnoses.
Objective: To carry out cross-mapping between NANDA-International and the International Classification of Diseases.
Methods: Observational study with frequency distribution by cross-mapping and identifying synonyms or quasi-synonyms in both classifications.
Results: We determined 1715 related factors/risk; 1193 were classified on one occasion and 522 were duplicated. The genuine and specific factors were 1593 (52.16%); 1460 (47.84%) were also in the medical classification.
Conclusions: Some NANDA-International domains and classes show genuine and specific factors in the nursing discipline, while others are also in the medical classification, whose resolution is not autonomously a nursing competence. In this way, NANDA-International can become an extensive and unhelpful tool, with little specific etiologies. Content related to nursing metaparadigms must be improved and enhanced to become visible with their own entity in the health systems.


REFERENCES

  1. Ketcherside M, Rhodes D, Powelson S, Cox C, Parker J. Translating interprofessional theory to interprofessional practice. J Prof Nurs. 2017 [acceso: 06/06/2017];33(5):370-7. Disponible en: http://www.professionalnursing.org/article/S8755-7223(16)30095-3/fulltext

  2. Zanotti R, Chiffi D. Diagnostic frameworks and nursing diagnoses: a normative stance. Nurs Philos. 2015 [acceso: 26/03/2017];16(1):64-73. Disponible en: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/nup.12074

  3. Guirao-Goris SJA, Lluch-Canut MT, Martín-Iglesias S, Quero-Rufián A, Roldán Merino JF. Nursing Taxonomies in Spain: Research Themes Presented at the AENTDE Conferences Over a 16-Year Period. Int J Nurs Knowl. 2017 [acceso: 18/02/2018];28(4):178-83. Disponible en: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/2047-3095.12130

  4. Diz Gómez J. Precisión en dos diagnósticos enfermeros relacionados con la terapéutica en atención primaria: incumplimiento del tratamiento y manejo efectivo del régimen terapéutico [tesis]. Universidad Complutense de Madrid; 2013 [acceso: 18/02/2018]. Disponible en: http://eprints.ucm.es/22302/1/T33570.pdf

  5. D’Agostino F, Sanson G, Cocchieri A, Vellone E, Welton J, Maurici M, et al. Prevalence of nursing diagnoses as a measure of nursing complexity in a hospital setting. J Adv Nurs. 2017 [acceso: 29/03/2017];73(9):2129-42. Disponible en: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jan.13285

  6. Chiffi D, Zanotti R. Medical and nursing diagnoses: a critical comparison. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 [acceso: 29/03/2017];21(1):1-6. Disponible en: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.12146/full

  7. Tastan S, Linch GCF, Keenan GM, Stifter J, McKinney D, Fahey L, et al. Evidence for the existing American Nurses Association-recognized standardized nursing terminologies: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014 [acceso: 09/02/2016];51(8):1160–70. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4095868/pdf/nihms590418.pdf

  8. Stallinga HA, ten Napel H, Jansen GJ, Geertzen JH, de Vries Robbé PF, Roodbol PF. Does language ambiguity in clinical practice justify the introduction of standard terminology? An integrative review. J Clin Nurs. 2015 [acceso: 29/12/2017];24(3-4):344-52. Disponible en: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jocn.12624

  9. Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar Social [Sede Web]. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad; 2016 [acceso: 11/12/2017]. Manual de codificación CIE-10-ES Diagnósticos; [303]. Disponible en: http://www.mscbs.gob.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/normalizacion/CIE10/UT_MANUAL_DIAG_2016_prov1.pdf

  10. Mateos-García MD. Metodología enfermera y sistemas estandarizados de lenguaje enfemero en la historia clínica digital [tesis]. Universidad de Sevilla; 2017 [acceso:07/06/2018]. Disponible en: https://www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/mostrarRef.do?ref=1458117#

  11. Herdman HT, Kamitsuru S. NANDA-International. Diagnósticos Enfermeros: Definiciones y Clasificación. 2015-2017. Barcelona: Elsevier España; 2015.

  12. González-Castillo MG, Monroy-Rojas A. Proceso enfermero de tercera generación. Enferm Univ. 2016 [acceso: 29/03/2018];13(2):124-9. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reu.2016.03.003

  13. Hernández-Conesa J, Moral de Calatrava P, Esteban-Albert M. Fundamentos de la enfermería: teoría y método. 2ª ed. Madrid: McGraw-Hill; 2003.

  14. Collado Boira EJ. Autocuidados y calidad de vida en pacientes enterostomizados [tesis]. Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU; 2014 [acceso: 11/09/2018]. Disponible en: http://dspace.ceu.es/bitstream/10637/7039/1/Autocuidados y calidad de vida en pacientes enterostomizados_Tesis_Eladio Collado Boira.pdf

  15. Von Krogh G. An Examination of the NANDA International Taxonomy for Domain Completeness, Ontological Homogeneity, and Clinical Functionality. Int J Nurs Terminol Classif. 2008 [acceso: 29/03/2017];19(2):65-75. Disponible en: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-618X.2008.00083.x

  16. Rivera Romero V, Pastoriza Galán P, Díaz Perianez C, Hilario Huapaya N. Revisión crítica de la taxonomía enfermera NANDA Internacional 2009-2011. Rev científica enfermería. 2013 [acceso: 30/11/2016];6(06):1-18. Disponible en: http://rua.ua.es/dspace/handle/10045/44913

  17. Brito-Brito PR, Rodríguez-Álvaro M, Rosell-Toledo C. Problemas NANDA del dominio psicosocial más frecuentes en atención primaria. ENE, Rev Enfermería. 2009 [acceso: 23/02/2016];3(1):42-51. Disponible en: https://ene-enfermeria.org/ojs/index.php/ENE/article/view/156

  18. Shimomai K, Furukawa H, Kuroda Y, Fukuda K, Masuda M, Koizumi J. The Difficulty of Selecting the NANDA-I Nursing Diagnosis (2015-2017) of “Death Anxiety” in Japan. Int J Nurs Knowl. 2018 [acceso: 29/03/2017];29(1):4-10. Disponible en: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/2047-3095.12154

  19. Noh HK, Lee E. Relationships Among NANDA-I Diagnoses, Nursing Outcomes Classification, and Nursing Interventions Classification by Nursing Students for Patients in Medical-Surgical Units in Korea. Int J Nurs Knowl. 2015 [acceso: 29/03/2017];26(1):43-51. Disponible en: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/2047-3095.12044

  20. Sabbagh-Sequera M, Loidi-García JM, Romero-Vázquez GM. Plan de cuidados a paciente intervenida de cesárea con preeclampsia. Enferm Clin. 2015 [acceso: 29/03/2017];25(1):33-9. Disponible en: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1130862114001454

  21. Lee E, Park H, Whyte J, Kim Y, Park SY. Identifying core nursing sensitive outcomes associated with the most frequently used North American Nursing Diagnosis Association-International nursing diagnoses for patients with cerebrovascular disease in Korea. Int J Nurs Pract. 2014 [acceso: 14/02/2016];20(6):636-45. Disponible en: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/ijn.12224

  22. Karatas H, Müller-Staub M, Erdemir F. Determination of Nursing Diagnoses in Children of Agricultural Laborer Families in South Eastern Regions of Turkey. Int J Nurs Knowl. 2018 [acceso: 29/03/2017];29(1):29-37. Disponible en: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/2047-3095.12144.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com