Research Problem
The research by De Lima, De Baros, and Michel (2009) validates the contents of the priority interventions for excess fluid volume contained in the Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC) and expected outcomes based on the Nursing Outcome Classification (NOC) in Brazil. The paper focuses on the effectiveness of nursing classifications, which have been developed to standardize nursing language in clinical practice. The researchers argue that despite the use of standardized nursing classifications in other countries, the trend is relatively new in Brazil. In fact, NIC and NOC are rarely used in Brazil. The trend prompts the need to validate the NIC and NOC contents in practice among Brazilian nurses.
Research Type
The research by De Lima et al. (2009) is a quantitative pilot study based on Fehring’s expert validation model. Pilot studies seek to explore and validate procedures for extensive consecutive use. In this study, the researchers aim at validating contents of nursing classifications in Brazil. A single nursing diagnosis is selected to evaluate the effectiveness of NIC interventions and NOC outcome indicators. The research tool is a detailed questionnaire with a Likert-type scale to compare nurses’ interventions with NIC priority interventions and NOC priority outcomes.
Sample Size and Population
Seven participants took part in the study. The researchers selected experts in cardiac nursing in order to match their expertise with the selected nursing diagnosis. Among the seven participants, one had completed full training in cardiac nursing and had three years of experience. Three of the remaining participants had already completed specialized courses in cardiac nursing as expected by the study’s inclusion criteria while the remaining participants were about to complete their master’s degrees in cardiac nursing. In addition to expertise in cardiac nursing, four of the seven nurses were using the NIC taxonomy while the other three used the NOC taxonomy to assess patients.
Results
The research uses Fehring’s expert validation model to interpret scores collected from the questionnaires (De Lima et al., 2009). In the NIC interventions, 83 activities were selected for consideration while 53 activities were selected for the NOC outcomes. The in the NIC activities, nine responses were below 0.5 and were automatically rejected. 24 indicators had scores between 0.5 and 0.8 and were included in findings while 50 indicators scored over 0.8 (major). Additionally, the NOC outcomes had only 8 responses with scores below 0.5 and were automatically rejected. 19 indicators scored between 0.5 and 0.8 while 26 indicators had scores above 0.8 (major). Additionally, three expert nurses proposed adoption of two new activities in the NIC interventions. The results demonstrate the significance of NIC interventions in clinical practice.
Analysis
The article is relevant to clinical practice since it collects evidence from experts to validate contents of popular nursing classifications. The nursing classifications contain standardized nursing diagnoses, interventions, and outcomes. Their effectiveness in clinical practice is imperative in promoting quality health services. The research compares intervention activities in the nursing classifications with expert practices. The findings enhance the credibility of nursing classifications and advocate the adoption of the NIC and NOC classifications in nursing practice (Herdman, 2011). The study demonstrates how nursing practice is gradually embracing standardized nursing language. Standardized nursing language improves communication and integration of nurses from different health-care settings. Additionally, the recommendations from three expert nurses can be used to enhance contents of the nursing classifications.
References
De Lima, J., De Barros, A. L. B. L., & Michel, M. (2009). A pilot study to validate the priority nursing interventions classification interventions and nursing outcomes classification outcomes for the nursing diagnosis “Excess fluid volume” in cardiac patients. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classifications, 20(2), 76-88.
Herdman, T. H. (2011). Nursing Diagnoses 2012-14: Definitions and Classification. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.