Revisão da prevalência de diagnósticos de enfermagem em diferentes populações e cenários de cuidado à saúde / Revisión de prevalencia de diagnósticos de enfermería en diferentes poblaciones y contextos de asistencia sanitaria / A review of nursing diagnoses prevalence in different populations and healthcare settings

Resumo Objetivo Fornecer uma visão geral da prevalência de diagnósticos de enfermagem em diferentes populações de pacientes e cenários de cuidado à saúde, e sobre os métodos de identificação dos diagnósticos de enfermagem. Métodos Revisão descritiva com aplicação de método sistemático de acordo com as diretrizes do Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Foram incluídos estudos das bases de dados Medline e CINAHL publicados entre janeiro de 2007 e janeiro de 2020, que relataram a prevalência de diagnósticos de enfermagem, independentemente da população e do cenário (n=1839). Resultados Após a triagem, foram incluídos 328 artigos para análise. Foram identificadas 20 populações diferentes de pacientes com suas respectivas prevalências de diagnósticos de enfermagem. A maioria dos estudos foi realizada em ambientes hospitalares (por exemplo, unidades de terapia intensiva e cirúrgicas). A Classificação da NANDA International foi uma linguagem padronizada de enfermagem amplamente utilizada e o Risco de infecção foi o diagnóstico mais frequentemente identificado. Foram identificadas diversas lacunas quanto aos métodos utilizados nos artigos. Conclusão Foram identificados os diagnósticos de enfermagem mais prevalentes nas diferentes populações de pacientes. Além disso, foram sumarizados os diagnósticos de enfermagem das cinco linguagens padronizadas de enfermagem reconhecidas pela American Nurses Association e identificados avanços, lacunas e uma chamada para ação.

Resumen Objetivo Proporcionar una visión general de la prevalencia de diagnósticos de enfermería en diferentes poblaciones de pacientes y diferentes contextos de asistencia sanitaria y de los métodos para identificar los diagnósticos de enfermería. Métodos Se aplicó una revisión descriptiva con método sistemático de acuerdo con las orientaciones de la Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Se incluyeron todos los estudios de las bases de datos Medline y CINAHL, de enero de 2007 a enero de 2020, que reportaron la prevalencia de diagnósticos de enfermería, sin distinción de población ni contexto. Se obtuvieron 1839 artículos. Resultados Después de la revisión, se incluyeron 328 artículos para el análisis. Se identificaron 20 poblaciones de pacientes con sus respectivas prevalencias de diagnósticos de enfermería. La mayoría de los estudios fueron desarrollados en el contexto de pacientes hospitalizados (unidades intensivas y quirúrgicas). La clasificación internacional NANDA fue el lenguaje estándar más utilizado, y el riesgo de infección fue el diagnóstico de enfermería identificado con más frecuencia. Se identificaron varios vacíos respecto a los métodos utilizados en los artículos analizados. Conclusión Se identificaron los diagnósticos de enfermería más prevalentes en diferentes poblaciones de pacientes. Además, los diagnósticos de enfermería se resumieron en los cinco lenguajes de enfermería estándar reconocidos por la Asociación Americana de Enfermería. Se identificaron avances, vacíos y un llamado a la acción.

Abstract Objective To provide an overview of the prevalence of nursing diagnoses in different patient populations and healthcare settings, and on the methods identifying nursing diagnoses. Methods A descriptive review with a systematic method was applied according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All studies, in Medline and CINAHL databases from January 2007 to January 2020, reporting nursing diagnoses prevalence were included regardless of population and setting retrieving 1839 articles. Results After the screening, 328 articles were included for the analysis. Twenty different patient populations with their respective nursing diagnoses prevalence were identified. Most studies were conducted in inpatient settings (e.g., intensive, and surgical units). NANDA International was a widespread standard nursing language used, and risk for infection was the most frequently identified nursing diagnosis. Several gaps were identified regarding the methods used in the articles analyzed. Conclusion The most prevalent nursing diagnoses in different patient populations were identified. Moreover, the nursing diagnoses in the five standard nursing languages recognized by the American Nurses Association were summarized. Advances, gaps, and a call to action were identified.

A systematic review of the association between nursing staff and nursing-sensitive outcomes in long-term institutional care.

AIMS: To examine the association between type of nursing staff and nursing-sensitive outcomes in long-term institutional care. DESIGN: This systematic review included studies published in English, German, and Dutch between January 1997 and January 2020. DATA SOURCES: The databases Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Original quantitative studies were included. REVIEW METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist was used to critically appraise the reporting of the studies. RESULTS: Fifteen articles were included. Of 33 quality of care outcomes, 21 were identified as nursing-sensitive outcomes of which 13 showed a significant association with nursing staff, specifically: Activities of daily living, aggressive behavior, bladder/bowel incontinence, contractures, expressive language skills, falls, infection (including vaccination), range of motion, pain, pressure ulcers, and weight loss. However, studies reported inconsistent results regarding the association among RNs, LPNs, CNAs, and HCAs and these nursing-sensitive outcomes, evidence shows that more RNs have a positive impact on nursing-sensitive outcomes. As to the evidence regarding the other type of nursing staff, especially HCA, findings regularly showed a negative association. CONCLUSION: Future research should be expanded with structure and process variables of which the mediating and moderating effect on nursing-sensitive outcomes is known. These may explain variances in quality of care and guide quality improvement initiatives. Researchers should consider fully applying Donabedian's structure-process-outcomes framework as it is a coherent entirety for quality assessment. IMPACT: This review provides an overview of quality of care outcomes that are responsive to nursing interventions in long-term institutional care. As the effects can be monitored and documented, quality assessment should focus on these nursing-sensitive outcomes. The inconclusive results make it difficult to provide recommendations on who should best perform which care.

The consistency between planned and actually given nursing care in long-terminstitutional care.

Continuous information exchange between healthcare professionals is facilitated by individualized care plans. Compliance with the planned care as documented in care plans is important to provide person-centered care which contributes to the continuity of care and quality of care outcomes. Using the Nursing Interventions Classification, this study examined the consistency between documented and actually provided interventions by type of nursing staff with 150 residents in long-term institutional care. The consistency was especially high for basic (93%) and complex (79%) physiological care. To a lesser extent for interventions in the behavioral domain (66%). Except for the safety domain, the probability that documented interventions were provided was high for all domains (≥ 91%, p > 0.05). NAs generally provided the interventions as documented. Findings suggest that HCAs worked beyond there scope of practice. The results may have implications for the deployment of nursing staff and are of importance to managers.

Accuracy of documentation in the nursing care plan in long-term institutional care.

Nursing staff working in long-term institutional care attend to residents with an increasing number of severe physical and cognitive limitations. To exchange information about the health status of these residents, accurate nursing documentation is important to ensure the safety of residents. This study examined the accuracy of nursing documentation in 197 care plans of five long-term institutional care facilities. Based on the phases of the nursing process, the D-Catch instrument measures the accuracy of the content and coherence of documentation. Inadequacies were especially found in the description of residents' care needs and stated nursing diagnoses as well as in progress and outcome reports. In somatic and psycho-geriatric units, higher accuracy scores were determined compared with residential care units. Investments in resources (e.g., time), reasoning skills of nursing staff, and implementation of professional standards in accordance with legal requirements may be needed to enhance the quality of nursing documentation.

Assessing time use in long-term institutional care: development, validity and inter-rater reliability of the Groningen Observational instrument for Long-Term Institutional Care (GO-LTIC).

BACKGROUND: Limited research has examined what is actually done in the process of care by nursing staff in long-term institutional care. The applied instruments employed different terminologies, and psychometric properties were inadequately described. This study aimed to develop and test an observational instrument to identify and examine the amount of time spent on nursing interventions in long-term institutional care using a standardized language. METHODS: The Groningen Observational instrument for Long-Term Institutional Care (GO-LTIC) is based on the conceptual framework of the Nursing Interventions Classification. Developmental, validation, and reliability stages of the GO-LTIC included: 1) item generation to identify potential setting-specific interventions; 2) examining content validity with a Delphi panel resulting in relevant interventions by calculating the item content validity index; 3) testing feasibility with trained observers observing nursing assistants; and 4) calculating inter-rater reliability using (non) agreement and Cohen's kappa for the identification of interventions and an intraclass correlation coefficient for the amount of time spent on interventions. Bland-Altman plots were applied to visualize the agreement between observers. A one-sample student T-test verified if the difference between observers differed significantly from zero. RESULTS: The final version of the GO-LTIC comprised 116 nursing interventions categorized into six domains. Substantial to almost perfect kappa's were found for interventions in the domains basic (0.67-0.92) and complex (0.70-0.94) physiological care. For the domains of behavioral, family, and health system interventions, the kappa's ranged from fair to almost perfect (0.30-1.00). Intraclass correlation coefficients for the amount of time spent on interventions ranged from fair to excellent for the physiological domains (0.48-0.99) and poor to excellent for the other domains (0.00-1.00). Bland Altman plots indicated that the clinical magnitude of differences in minutes was small. No statistical significant differences between observers (p > 0.05) were found. CONCLUSIONS: The GO-LTIC shows good content validity and acceptable inter-rater reliability to examine the amount of time spent on nursing interventions by nursing staff. This may provide managers with valuable information to make decisions about resource allocation, task allocation of nursing staff, and the examination of the costs of nursing services.

Examining Time Use of Dutch Nursing Staff in Long-Term Institutional Care: A Time-Motion Study.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing residents' acuity levels and available resources in long-term institutional care requires insight into the care provided by nursing staff so as to guide task allocation and optimal use of resources, and enhance quality of care. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between time use and type of nursing staff, residents' acuity levels, and unit type by using a standardized nursing intervention classification. DESIGN: A multicenter cross-sectional observational study was performed using time-motion technique. SETTING: Five Dutch long-term institutional care facilities participated. In total, 4 residential care units, 3 somatic units, and 6 psycho-geriatric units were included. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 136 nursing staff members: 19 registered nurses, 89 nursing assistants, 9 primary caregivers, and 19 health care assistants. MEASUREMENTS: A structured observation list was used based on the Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC). Residents' acuity levels, representing residents' needs, were based on the Dutch Care Severity Index. Medians and interquartile ranges were calculated for time spent on interventions per type of nursing staff and units. Linear mixed models were used to examine the relationship between time spent on nursing interventions and the type of nursing staff, residents' acuity levels, and unit type. RESULTS: Observations resulted in 52,628 registered minutes for 102 nursing interventions categorized into 6 NIC domains for 335 residents. Nursing staff spent the most time on direct care interventions, particularly in the domain of basic physiological care. Variances in time spent on interventions between types of nursing staff were minimal. Unit type was more significantly (P < .05) associated with time spent on interventions in domains than the type of nursing staff. Residents' acuity levels did not affect time spent by nursing staff (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The current study found limited evidence for task allocation between the types of nursing staff, which may suggest a blurring of role differentiation. Also, findings suggest that residents received similar care regardless of their needs, implying that care is predominantly task-oriented instead of person-centered. Managers may reconsider whether the needs of residents are adequately met by qualified nursing staff, considering the differences in education and taking into account increasing acuity levels of residents and available resources.