Implementing nursing diagnostics effectively: cluster randomized trial

Müller-Staub, Maria, Needham, Ian, Odenbreit, Matthias, Lavin, Mary Ann and van Achterberg, Theo (2008) Implementing nursing diagnostics effectively: cluster randomized trial. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63 3: 291-301. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04700.x


Author Müller-Staub, Maria
Needham, Ian
Odenbreit, Matthias
Lavin, Mary Ann
van Achterberg, Theo
Title Implementing nursing diagnostics effectively: cluster randomized trial
Journal name Journal of Advanced Nursing   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0309-2402
Publication date 2008-08
Year available 2009
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04700.x
Volume 63
Issue 3
Start page 291
End page 301
Total pages 11
Editor Alison Tierney
Place of publication United Kingdom
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Language eng
Subject 1110 Nursing
Formatted abstract
Aim. This paper is a report of a study to investigate the effect of guided clinical reasoning. This method was chosen as a follow-up educational measure (refresher) after initial implementation of standardized language.

Background. Research has demonstrated nurses' need for education in diagnostic reasoning to state and document accurate nursing diagnoses, and to choose effective nursing interventions to attain favourable patient outcomes.

Methods. In a cluster randomized controlled experimental study, nurses from three wards received guided clinical reasoning, an interactive learning method. Three wards, receiving classic case discussions, functioned as control group. Data were collected in 2004–2005. The quality of 225 randomly selected nursing records, containing 444 documented nursing diagnoses, corresponding interventions and outcomes was evaluated by applying 18 Likert-type items with a 0–4 scale of the instrument Quality of Nursing Diagnoses, Interventions and Outcomes. The effect of guided clinical reasoning was tested against classic case discussions using T-tests and mixed effects model analyses.

Findings. The mean scores for nursing diagnoses, interventions and outcomes increased significantly in the intervention group. Guided clinical reasoning led to higher quality of nursing diagnosis documentation; to aetiology-specific interventions and to enhanced nursing-sensitive patient outcomes. In the control group, the quality was unchanged.

Conclusion. Guided clinical reasoning supported nurses' abilities to state accurate nursing diagnoses, to select effective nursing interventions and to reach and document favourable patient outcomes. The results support the use of the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association, Nursing Interventions Classification and Nursing Outcomes Classification classifications and demonstrate implications for the electronic nursing documentation.
Keyword cluster randomized experimental design
documentation
evaluation
health record
interventions
nursing diagnoses
outcomes
Quality of Diagnoses
Interventions and Outcomes (Q-DIO)
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Unknown

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) - Collection
UQ Centre for Clinical Research Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 25 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 25 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 07 Oct 2009, 15:49:03 EST by Carmen Buttery on behalf of UQ Centre for Clinical Research