Chapter 5 T. Heather Herdman, RN, PhD, FNI and Shigemi Kamitsuru, RN, PhD, FNI We routinely receive questions via our website, email, and when members of the NANDA-I Board of Directors or the CEO/Executive Director travel and present at a variety of conferences. We have decided to include some of the most common questions here, along with their answers, with the hope that it will help others who may have the same questions. Standardized nursing language (SNL) is a commonly understood set of terms used to describe the clinical judgments involved in assessments (nursing diagnoses), along with the interventions and outcomes related to the documentation of nursing care. The American Nurses Association recognizes 12 SNLs for nursing. Many nursing languages claim to be standardized; some are simply a list of terms, others provide definitions of those terms. NANDA-I maintains that a standardized language that represents any profession should provide, at a minimum, an evidence-based definition, list of defining characteristics (signs/symptoms), and related factors (etiologic factors); risk diagnoses should include an evidence-based definition, and a list of risk factors. Without these, anyone can define any term in his/her own way, which obviously violates the purpose of standardization. When we speak about diagnosing, we really are not talking about something as simplistic as picking a term from a list, or choosing something that “sounds right” for our patient. We are speaking about the diagnostic decision-making process, in which nurses diagnose. So, rather than using these simplistic terms (selecting, choosing, picking), we should really describe the process of diagnosing. Rather than saying “choose a diagnosis,” we should be saying “diagnose the patient/family”; rather than saying “picking a diagnosis,” we could use “ensure accuracy in your diagnosis,” or again, simply “diagnose the patient/family.” Words are powerful – so when we say things such as choose, pick, or select, it does sound simple, like reading through a list of terms and picking one. Using diagnostic reasoning, however, is much more than that – and diagnosing is what we are doing, which is far more than just “picking” something. Implementation of nursing diagnosis enhances every aspect of nursing practice, from garnering professional respect to assuring consistent documentation representing nurses’ professional clinical judgment, and accurate documentation to enable reimbursement. NANDA-I exists to develop, refine, and promote terminology that accurately reflects nurses’ clinical judgments. Taxonomy is the practice and science of categorization and classification. The NANDA-I taxonomy currently includes 235 nursing diagnoses that are grouped (classified) within 13 domains (categories) of nursing practice: Health Promotion; Nutrition; Elimination and Exchange; Activity/Rest; Perception/Cognition; Self-Perception; Role Relationships; Sexuality; Coping/Stress Tolerance; Life Principles; Safety/Protection; Comfort; Growth/Development. In any field, development and maintenance of a research-based body of work require an investment of time and expertise, and dissemination of that work is an additional expense. As a volunteer organization, we sponsor committee meetings for the review of submitted diagnoses, to ensure they meet the level of evidence criteria. We also provide educational courses and offerings in English, Spanish, and Portuguese due to the high demand for this content. We have committee members from all over the world, and video conferencing and the occasional face-to-face meeting are expenses – as are our conferences and educational events. Our fees support this work on a break-even basis, and are quite modest in comparison to fees charged for a license to ICD-10 medical diagnoses. NANDA International, Inc. depends on the funds received from the sale of our textbooks and electronic licensing to maintain and improve the state of the science within our terminology. The NANDA-I terminology is a copyrighted terminology, therefore no part of the NANDA-I publication, NANDA International Nursing Diagnoses: Definitions and Classification, can be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. This includes publication in online blogs, websites, etc. This is true regardless of the language in which you intend to use the work. For usage other than reading or consulting the book, a license is required from Blackwell Publishing, Ltd (a company of John Wiley & Sons Inc.) or the approved publisher of the book in any other language. The official translation rights holders for our work in languages other than English can be found at http://www.nanda.org/nanda-interntional-taxonomy-translation-licensees.html. Use of this content requires that you apply for and receive permission from the publisher to reproduce our work in any format. Further information is available on our website (www.nanda.org) or you can contact Wiley-Blackwell at wiley@nanda.org or visit their website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The purpose of the taxonomy is to provide organization to the terms (diagnoses) within NANDA-I. It was never intended to serve as an assessment framework. Please see our Position Statement on the use of the NANDA-I taxonomy as a nursing assessment framework, on p. 459. “PES” is an acronym that stands for Problem, Etiology (related factors), and Signs/Symptoms (defining characteristics). The PES format was first published by Dr. Marjory Gordon, a founder and former President of NANDA-I. The component parts of NANDA-I diagnoses are now referred to as related factors and defining characteristics, and therefore the wording “PES format” is not used in current NANDA-I books. It is still used in several countries and in many publications. Formulating accurate diagnoses relies on assessing and documenting related factors and defining characteristics, and the PES format supports this, which is critical for accuracy in nursing diagnoses, a focus that NANDA-I strongly supports. However, NANDA-I does not require the PES format, or any other particular format, to document nursing diagnoses. We are aware of the wide variety of electronic documentation systems in use and in development around the world, and it seems that there are as many ways of providing nursing documentation as there are systems. Many computer systems do not allow the use of the “related to…as evidenced by” model. However, it is important that nurses are able to communicate the assessment data that support the diagnosis they make, so that others caring for the patient know why a diagnosis was selected. Please see the NANDA-I Position Statement on the structure of the nursing diagnosis statement when included in a care plan (p. 459). The PES format remains a strong method for teaching clinical reasoning and for supporting students and nurses as they learn the skill of diagnosis. Because patients usually have more than one related factor and/or defining characteristic, many sites replace the wording “as manifested/as evidenced by” and “related to” with a list of the defining characteristics and related factors following the diagnostic statement. This list is based on the individual patient situation and can use the standardized NANDA-I terms. Informatics codes are now available for all diagnostic indicators within the NANDA-I terminology, on our website. Regardless of the requirements for documentation, it is important to remember that for safe patient care in clinical areas, it is crucial to survey or assess defining characteristics (manifestations of diagnoses) and related factors (or causes) of nursing diagnoses. Choosing effective interventions is based on related factors and defining characteristics. Documentation systems differ by organization, so in some cases you may write (or select from a computerized list) the diagnostic label that corresponds to the human response you have diagnosed. Assessment data may be found in a different section (or “screen”) of the computer system, and you would select your related factors and defining characteristics, or your risk factors, in that location. Here are some examples of PES charting. Problem-Focused Diagnosis To use the PES format, start with the diagnosis itself, followed by the etiological factors (related factors in a problem-focused diagnosis). Finally, identify the major signs/symptoms (defining characteristics). Risk Diagnosis For risk diagnoses, there are no related factors (etiological factors), since you are identifying a vulnerability in a patient for a potential problem; the problem is not yet present. Different experts recommend different phrasing (some use “related to,” others use “as evidenced by” for risk diagnoses). Because the term “related to” is used to suggest an etiology, in the case of a problem-focused diagnosis, and because there is only a vulnerability to a problem when a risk diagnosis is used, NANDA-I has decided to recommend the use of the phrase “as evidenced by” to refer to the evidence of risk that exists, if the PES format is used. Because health promotion diagnoses do not require a related factor, there is no “related to” in the writing of this diagnosis. Instead, the defining characteristic(s) are provided as evidence of the desire on the part of the patient to improve his/her current health state. There is no real use for simply providing a list of terms – to do so defeats the purpose of a SNL. Unless the definition, defining characteristics, related and/or risk factors are known, the label itself is meaningless. Therefore, we do not believe it is in the interest of patient safety to produce simple lists of terms that could be misunderstood or used inappropriately in a clinical context. It is essential to have the definition of the diagnosis and, more importantly, the diagnostic indicators (assessment data/patient history data) required to make the diagnosis: for example, the signs/symptoms that you collect through your assessment (“defining characteristics”) and the cause of the diagnosis (“related factors”) or those things that place a patient at significant risk for a diagnosis (“risk factors”). As you assess the patient, you will rely on both your clinical knowledge and “book knowledge” to see patterns in the data, diagnostic indicators that cluster together that may relate to a diagnosis. Questions to ask to identify and validate the correct diagnosis include: Absolutely! Nursing diagnoses are used in operating rooms, ambulatory clinics, psychiatric facilities, home health, and hospice organizations, as well as in public health, school nursing, occupational health – and, of course, in hospitals. As diverse as nursing practice is, there are core diagnoses that seem to cross them all – acute pain (00132), anxiety (00146), deficient knowledge (00126), readiness for enhanced health management (00162), for example, can probably be found anywhere a nurse might practice. That said, we know that there is a need for the development of diagnoses to further expand the terms we use to describe nursing knowledge across all of these areas of nursing. Work is underway in some areas, such as pediatrics and mental health, and across a great number of countries, and we are eagerly awaiting the results! What an interesting question! Should nurses practice nursing? Yes, of course! There is no question that critical care nurses have a high focus on interventions as a result of medical conditions, and often intervene with patients using “standing protocols” (standing medical orders) that require critical thinking to implement correctly. But let’s be honest: nurses in critical care units need to practice nursing. Patients in critical condition are at risk for many complications that can be prevented by nurses: ventilator-related pneumonias (risk for infection, 00004), pressure ulcers (risk for pressure ulcer, 00249), corneal injury (risk for corneal injury, 00245). They are often scared (fear, 00148), and families are stressed but need to know how to care for their loved one when he comes home: deficient knowledge (00126), stress overload (00177), risk for caregiver role strain (00162). If nurses only attend to the obvious medical condition, then, as the old adage says, they may win the battle, but still lose the war. These patients may develop sequelae that could have been avoided, length of stay may be prolonged, or discharge home could result in untoward events and increased readmission rates. Attend to the medical conditions? Certainly! And focus on the human responses? Absolutely! NANDA-I identifies three categories of nursing diagnosis: problem-focused, health promotion, and risk diagnoses. Within these categories, you can also find the use of syndromes. Definitions for each of these categories, and syndromes, can be found in the Glossary of Terms, on p. 464. A nursing diagnosis is a clinical judgment concerning a human response to health conditions/life processes, or a vulnerability for that response, by an individual, family, group, or community. It requires a nursing assessment to diagnose your patient correctly – you cannot safely standardize nursing diagnoses by using a medical diagnosis. Although it is true that there are common nursing diagnoses that frequently occur in patients with various medical diagnoses, the fact is that you will not know if the nursing diagnosis is accurate unless you assess for defining characteristics and establish that key related factors exist. A nursing diagnosis provides the basis for selection of nursing interventions to achieve outcomes for which the nurse has accountability. This means that nursing diagnoses are used to determine the appropriate plan of care for the patient, driving patient outcomes and interventions. You cannot standardize a nursing diagnosis, but it is possible to standardize nursing interventions, once you have selected the appropriate outcome for the nursing diagnosis, as interventions should be evidence-based whenever possible. Nursing diagnoses also provide a standard language for use in the Electronic Health Record, enabling clear communication among care team members and the collection of data for continuous improvement in patient care. A medical diagnosis deals with a disease, illness or injury. A nursing diagnosis deals with actual or potential human responses to health problems and life processes. For example, a medical diagnosis of cerebrovascular attack (CVA or stroke) provides information about the patient’s pathology. The nursing diagnoses of impaired verbal communication, risk for falls, interrupted family processes, chronic pain, and powerlessness provide a more holistic understanding of the impact of that stroke on this particular patient and his/her family – they also direct nursing interventions to obtain patient-specific outcomes. If nurses only focus on the stroke, they might miss the chronic pain the patient suffers, his sense of powerlessness, and even the interrupted family processes. All of these issues will have an impact on his potential discharge home, his ability to manage his new therapeutic regimen, and his overall quality of life. It is also important to remember that, while a medical diagnosis belongs only to the patient, nursing treats the patient and his family, so diagnoses regarding the family are critical because they have the potential to influence – positively or negatively – the outcomes you are trying to achieve with the patient. There are several parts of a nursing diagnosis: the diagnostic label, definition, and the assessment criteria used to diagnose, the defining characteristics and related factors or risk factors. As we noted in Chapter 4, NANDA-I has strong concerns about the safety of using terms (diagnosis labels) that have no standardized meaning, and/or no assessment criteria. Picking a diagnosis from a list, or making up a term at a patient’s bedside, is a dangerous practice for a couple of very important reasons. First, communication between healthcare team members must be clear, concise, and consistent. If every person defines a “diagnosis” in a different way, there is no clarity. Secondly, how can we assess the validity of a diagnosis, or the diagnostic ability of a nurse, if we have no data to support the diagnosis? Let’s look at the example of Myra Johansen. This case study shows the problem with “picking” a diagnosis from a list of terms, without knowledge of the definition or the assessment data needed to diagnose the response.
Frequently Asked Questions
Basic Questions about Standardized Nursing Languages
What is standardized nursing language?
How many standardized nursing languages are there?
What are the differences among standardized nursing languages?
I see people use terms such as “select a diagnosis,” “choose a diagnosis,” “pick a diagnosis” – this sounds like there is an easy way to know what diagnosis to use. Is that correct?
Basic Questions about NANDA-I
What is NANDA International?
What is taxonomy?
Why does NANDA-I charge a fee for access to its nursing diagnoses?
If we buy a book, and type the contents into software ourselves, do we still have to pay?
Should the structure of Taxonomy II be used as a nursing assessment framework?
What is PES, how was it developed, and what are its origins? Does NANDA-I require the PES format/scheme?
How do I write the diagnostic statement for risk, problem-focused, and health promotion diagnoses?
Health Promotion Diagnosis
Does NANDA-I provide a list of its diagnoses?
Basic Questions about Nursing Diagnoses
Can nursing diagnosis be used safely other than in an inpatient unit, such as in the operating room and outpatient clinics?
Should nurses in a critical care unit use nursing diagnosis? We are busy taking care of medical conditions.
What are the types of nursing diagnoses in the NANDA-I classification?
What are nursing diagnoses, and why should I use them?
What is the difference between a medical diagnosis and a nursing diagnosis?
What are the component parts of a diagnosis, and what do they mean for nurses in practice?