|
Survey indicates
sharp increase in usage of NANDA, NOC, and NIC
By Gail M. Keenan,
PhD, RN, Marcy Treder, BSN, RN, and Evelyn Clingerman, PhD,
RN
A
telephone survey was conducted in April and May of this year
to ascertain use of standardized terminologies; the American
Nursing Diagnosis Association [(NANDA) 1999; Johnson, Maas et
al. 2000], the Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC) (Johnson,
Maas et al. 2000), and the Nursing Interventions Classification
(NIC) (McCloskey and Bulechek 2000) in the 43 Michigan schools
of nursing. The purpose of the survey was to evaluate the impact
of the 1998 Michigan Nurses Association (MNA) resolution in
which NANDA, NOC, and NIC (NNN) were endorsed as the single
unified nursing language system that the association would support
for describing and documenting nursing care. The NNN terminologies
contain terms and measures that respectively represent nursing
diagnoses, outcomes, and interventions. Findings indicate that
usage of NNN has dramatically increased in Michigan schools
of nursing since adoption of the resolution.
Four years ago, members of the MNA Standardized Nursing Language
Task Force conducted a telephone survey of representatives from
nine Michigan schools of nursing to evaluate baseline awareness
and usage of NNN (MNA, 1997). Seven were University based and
two were community college based schools. Responses indicated
that all nine schools were aware and using NANDA in some way.
Six of the respondents reported awareness of the NIC and NOC
classifications in their schools. Only two of the nine schools
were using NIC in some way to educate students and none were
using NOC. See Table 1.
Table
1
1997 Michigan School of Nursing Usage of NANDA, NOC, and NIC
Michigan
Schools
|
N
|
#
NANDA
|
%
NANDA
|
#
NOC
|
%
NOC
|
#
NIC
|
%
NIC
|
| University |
|
7
|
100%
|
0
|
0%
|
2
|
22%
|
| Community College |
|
2
|
100%
|
0
|
0%
|
0
|
0%
|
| Total |
|
9
|
100%
|
0
|
0%
|
2
|
22%
|
Method and Results
2001 Survey
A
faculty member, knowledgeable of the school's nursing curriculum,
was interviewed from each of 16 University and 27 Community
College schools of nursing during March and April of this
year to ascertain use of NANDA, NOC and NIC (NNN).
Supplemental information regarding the availability of the
NANDA, NOC and NIC textbooks in a corresponding college bookstore
was also obtained to validate survey information. Approximately
81% of respondents from University based schools indicated
that NNN were in some way incorporated into the curriculum
structure, didactic courses, clinical courses or a combination
of the three. Forty four percent of the respondents from the
community college schools indicated similar usage patterns.
See Table 2.
Table
2
2001 Michigan School of Nursing Usage of
NANDA, NOC, and NIC
Michigan
Schools
|
N
|
#
NANDA
|
%
NANDA
|
#
NOC
|
%
NOC
|
#
NIC
|
%
NIC
|
| University |
16 |
16
|
100%
|
13
|
81%
|
13
|
81%
|
| Community College |
27 |
23
|
85%
|
12
|
45%
|
12
|
45%
|
| Total |
43 |
39
|
91%
|
25
|
58%
|
25
|
58%
|
Discussion
The 2001 survey results suggest that the 1998 MNA resolution
has had a major impact on the usage of NANDA, NOC, and NIC in
Michigan schools of nursing. In particular comparison of 2001
data with that gathered in 1997 shows an increase in the number
of schools using NIC from 22% to 58% and an increase in number
using NOC from 0% to 58%. Though the 1997 survey involved a
convenience sample, there is reason to believe that the data
provides a fair description of Michigan school usage at that
time. Schools of nursing are frequently disseminators of new
ideas and trends and Michigan schools are no exception. It appears
that Michigan nursing faculty members are recognizing the opportunities
and benefits of using NANDA, NOC, and NIC and passing these
along to students. The terminologies, when used widely, enhance
clinical communication and the quality of day-to-day nursing
care. In addition, when nursing care is documented reliably
and consistently with NANDA, NOC, and NIC, the information can
be used to evaluate treatment effectiveness and support fair
decisions about the distribution of nursing resources. To date
the American Nurses Association has granted recognition status
to 12 terminologies and does not endorse a single system (Elfrink
et. al., 2001). The lack of endorsement of a single unified
nursing language system within the profession has caused confusion
about the purposes of standardized terminologies and limited
the adoption rate. The MNA's decision to support a unified language
system is reversing this trend in Michigan and facilitating
dissemination of NANDA, NOC, and NIC into practice. The Michigan
Nurses are to be congratulated on the accumulating successes
of their bold efforts to bring "visibility" and "credibility"
to nursing work.
References
Elfrink, V., Bakken, S., Coenen, A. McNeil, B.
& C. Bickford (2001). Standard nursing vocabularies: A foundation
for quality care.
Johnson, M., M. Maas, & S. Moorhead (2000). Nursing outcomes
classification. St. Louis, Mosby.
McCloskey, J. C. and G. M. Bulechek (2000). Nursing interventions
classification (NIC). St. Louis, Mosby.
Michigan Nurses Asociation (MNA) (1998). Standardized nursing
language action report. Okemos, MI: 1998 House of Delegates.
Michigan Nurses Association (MNA) Standardized Nursing Language
Task Force (1997). Survey results. Standardized Nursing Language
Task Force Meeting Minutes, May 1, 1997.
North American Nursing Diagnoses Association (NANDA) (1999).
Nursing diagnoses: Definitions & classification 1999-2000.
Philadelphia, NANDA.
|
