A Pilot Study to Validate the Priority Nursing Interventions
Problem/hypothesis of the study
The hypothesis of the study was to validate the components of the Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC) and the Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC) used by nurses to diagnose excess fluid volume in cardiac patients. The study aimed to determine the effectiveness of the aforementioned interventions and outcomes in the nursing practice.
Type of study
The study was an evidence-based quantitative study that scored outcomes based on numerical and statistical data collected from participants. Researchers used surveys and questionnaires to collect information. In addition, they used a Likert scale based on the Fehring model to score the outcomes.
Sample size and population
The study was conducted in a Brazilian hospital’s cardiology unit. The sample size comprised 7 professional nurses who worked as specialists in different fields of cardiology. They were selected based on two criteria namely consent to participate and possession of the experience of more than two years in any of the department’s units. One of the nurses had worked in the department for 3 years.
Three participants had completed different specialisation courses in varied fields of cardiac nursing. Three others were in the process of completing master’s degrees in the same field. All participants had applied the NANDA-I interventions in different situations for an average of 3.8 years. 4 nurses had significant experience in using the NIC interventions for diagnosis and 3 were highly experienced in using the NOC interventions for patient evaluation.
Results of the study
The study had 83 activities that comprised the NIC interventions and NOC outcomes that were used to describe fluid management, hypervolemia management, and fluid monitoring in patients. Activities or indicators that were assigned scores less than 0.5 were rejected because they were insignificant. On the other hand, indicators that attained scores above 0.8 were considered very important. Only 9 out of the 83 NIC interventions had scores less than 0.5.
These interventions were described as insignificant by the nurses. 50 of the 83 activities attained scores higher than 0.8. These were described as major and therefore very important. 53 outcomes were related to fluids, hydration, as well as the balance between basic and acidic electrolytes. Only 8 outcomes were assigned values below 0.5. 26 activities were assigned scores above 0.8. Three nurses expressed the need for the inclusion of two unique activities that they used regularly in patient diagnosis. The recommended activities were not among the NIC interventions and NOC outcomes used in the study.
Article’s relevance to clinical practice
The article is relevant to nursing practice because of the importance of NIC interventions and NOC outcomes in patient diagnosis. One of the most important aspects of any effective treatment program is an accurate diagnosis. Efficacious nursing protocols ensure an accurate diagnosis. The results of the study can help in the process of choosing the most effective interventions and indicators to apply in cardiac patients’ diagnoses.
The grouping of findings into major and insignificant interventions is necessary because of its potential to improve diagnosis. In addition, nurses only apply interventions that they are sure are effective and appropriate for specific diagnosis practices. Several interventions were proposed for addition to the nursing protocols by participants who had used them in their nursing practice. The study also used earlier versions of NIC and NOC that had several limitations. The findings of the study improved the earlier versions and consequently improved the outcomes of nursing practice that involve their application.
Reference
Lopes, J. deL., de Barros, A. L., & Michel, J. L. (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.