ONE. Understanding NIC



Understanding NIC


A description of NIC


The Nursing Interventions Classification (NIC) is a comprehensive standardized classification of interventions that nurses perform. It is useful for care planning, clinical documentation, communication of care across settings, integration of data across systems and settings, effectiveness research, productivity measurement, competency evaluation, reimbursement, teaching, and curricular design. The Classification includes the interventions that nurses do on behalf of patients, both independent and collaborative interventions, both direct and indirect care. An intervention is defined as any treatment, based upon clinical judgment and knowledge, that a nurse performs to enhance patient/client outcomes. Although an individual nurse will have expertise in only a limited number of interventions reflecting her or his specialty, the entire Classification captures the expertise of all nurses. NIC can be used in all settings (from acute care to intensive care units, to home care, to hospice care, to primary care) and all specialties (from critical care nursing to pediatric nursing and gerontological nursing). The entire Classification describes the domain of nursing; however, some of the interventions in the Classification are also done by other providers. Other health care providers are welcome to use NIC to describe their treatments.


NIC interventions include both the physiological (e.g., Acid-Base Management) and the psychosocial (e.g., Anxiety Reduction). Interventions are included for illness treatment (e.g., Hyperglycemia Management), illness prevention (e.g., Fall Prevention), and health promotion (e.g., Exercise Promotion). Most of the interventions are for use with individuals, but many are for use with families (e.g., Family Integrity Promotion) and some for entire communities (e.g., Environmental Management: Community). Indirect care interventions (e.g., Supply Management) are also included. Each intervention as it appears in the Classification is listed with a label name, a definition, a set of activities to carry out the intervention, and background readings. A notation that appears on each intervention just before the listing of background readings provides the edition(s) in which the intervention was developed and modified.


In this edition, there are 554 interventions and nearly 13,000 activities. The portions of the intervention that are standardized are the intervention labels and the definitions—these should not be changed when they are used. This allows for communication across settings and comparison of outcomes. Care can be individualized, however, through the activities. From a list of approximately 10 to 30 activities per intervention, the provider selects the activities that are appropriate for the specific individual or family and then can add new activities if desired. All modifications or additions in activities should be congruent with the definition of the intervention. For each intervention, the activities are listed in logical order, from what a nurse would do first to what he or she would do last. For many activities the placement is not crucial, but for others, the time sequence is important. The lists of activities are fairly long because the Classification has to meet the needs of multiple users; students and novices need more concrete directions than experienced nurses. The activities are not standardized; this would be nearly impossible with so many of them and would defeat the purpose of using these to individualize care. The short lists of background readings at the end of each intervention are those that were found most helpful in developing the intervention or that support some of the activities in the intervention. They are a place to begin reading if one is new to the intervention, but they are by no means a complete reference list, nor are they inclusive of all the research on the intervention.


Although the lists of activities are very helpful for the teaching of an intervention and for implementation of the delivery of the intervention, they are not the essence of the Classification. The intervention label names and definitions are the key to the Classification; the names provide a summary label for the discrete activities and allow nurses to identify and communicate the nature of their work. Prior to NIC we only had long lists of discrete activities and no organizing structure; with NIC we can easily communicate our interventions with the label name that is defined with both a formal definition and a list of implementation activities.


The interventions are grouped into 30 classes and 7 domains for ease of use. The 7 domains are: (1) Physiological: Basic, (2) Physiological: Complex, (3) Behavioral, (4) Safety, (5) Family, (6) Health System, and (7) Community (see the Taxonomy beginning on p. 38). A few interventions are located in more than one class, but each has a unique number (code) that identifies the primary class and is not used for any other intervention. The NIC taxonomy was coded for several reasons: (1) to facilitate computer use, (2) to facilitate ease of data manipulation, (3) to enhance articulation with other coded systems, and (4) to allow for use in reimbursement. The codes for the 7 domains are 1 to 7; the codes for the 30 classes are A to Z, a, b, c, d. Each intervention has a unique number consisting of four spaces. If desired, activities can be coded sequentially after the decimal using two digits (numbers are not included in the text so as not to distract the reader). An example of a complete code is 4U-6140.02, which is Safety domain, Crisis Management class, Code Management intervention, second activity: “Ensure that patient’s airway is open, artificial respirations are administered, and cardiac compressions are being delivered.”


NIC interventions have been linked with NANDA International (NANDA-I) nursing diagnoses (included in this edition, see Part 6, p. 461), Omaha System problems,13 resident assessment protocols (RAP) used in nursing homes,7 and OASIS (Outcome and Assessment Information Set)6 currently mandated for collection for Medicare/Medicaid-covered patients receiving skilled home care. The linkages with Omaha, RAP, and OASIS are available from the Center for Nursing Classification and Clinical Effectiveness (CNC) at the University of Iowa, College of Nursing. NIC is linked to NANDA-I diagnoses, the Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC), and 10 clinical conditions (e.g., hypertension, total joint replacement: hip/knee) in NOC and NIC Linkages to NANDA-I and Clinical Conditions: Supporting Critical Reasoning and Quality Care published by Elsevier in 2012.14 This book, now in the third edition, unifies the NANDA-I, NOC, and NIC languages and serves as a valuable tool for developing care plans and nursing information systems.


The language used in the Classification is clear, consistently worded, and reflects language used in practice. Surveys to clinicians as well as 20 years of use of the Classification have demonstrated that all of the interventions are used in practice. Although the overall listing of more than 550 interventions may seem overwhelming at first to the practitioner or nursing student, we have seen that nurses soon discover those interventions that are used most often in their particular specialty or with their patient population. Other ways to locate the desired interventions are the taxonomy, the linkages with diagnoses, and the core interventions for specialties also contained in this edition.


The Classification is continually updated and has an ongoing process for feedback and review. In the back of this book are instructions for users to submit suggestions for modifications to existing interventions or propose a new intervention. Many of the changes in this edition have come about due to clinicians and researchers taking time to submit suggestions for modifications based upon their use in practice and research. These submissions are then put through a review process with editing and changes made as needed. All contributors whose changes are included in the next edition are acknowledged in the book. New editions of the Classification are planned for approximately every five years. Work that is done between editions and other relevant publications that enhance the use of the Classification are available from the Center for Nursing Classification and Clinical Effectiveness at the University of Iowa.


The research to develop NIC began in 1987 and has progressed through four phases, each with some overlap in time:



Work conducted in each of these phases is described in previous editions of this book and in many other publications (e.g., see references 5,8,11,12,17). The research was begun with seven years of funding from the National Institute of Nursing at the National Institutes of Health. Ongoing maintenance is supported by the Center for Nursing Classification and Clinical Effectiveness at the College of Nursing at the University of Iowa with financing largely through earnings from licenses and related products. NIC was developed by a large research team whose members represented multiple areas of clinical and methodological expertise. Members of this team as well as others who contribute to the continued development of NIC are appointed to three-year terms as Fellows in the Center. Fellows make significant contributions to the upkeep and implementation of NIC and NOC. These individuals include research team members, staff at collaborating agencies, retired professors, and visiting scholars. The current list of Fellows appears in the foreword matter of this book. For more information about the Center for Nursing Classification and Clinical Effectiveness, which houses NIC and NOC, please see the website: http://www.nursing.uiowa.edu/cnc.


Multiple research methods have been used in the development of NIC. An inductive approach was used in phase I to build the Classification based on existing practice. Original sources were current textbooks, care planning guides, and nursing information systems. Content analysis, focus group review, and questionnaires to experts in specialty areas of practice were used to augment the clinical practice expertise of team members. Phase II was characterized by deductive methods. Methods to construct the taxonomy included similarity analysis, hierarchical clustering, and multidimensional scaling. Through clinical field-testing, steps for implementation were developed and tested and the need for linkages between NANDA, NIC, and NOC were identified. Over time, more than 1000 nurses have completed questionnaires and approximately 50 professional associations have provided input about the Classification. More details are found in chapters in the earlier editions of NIC and in numerous articles and book chapters. A video made by the National League of Nursing and now available for rent from the Center for Nursing Classification and Clinical Effectiveness at the University of Iowa is a good historical resource of the early work.


Several tools are available that assist in the implementation of the Classification. Included in this book are the taxonomic structure to assist a user to find the intervention of choice, linkages with NANDA-I diagnoses to facilitate decision support with these diagnostic languages, the core intervention lists for areas of specialty practice, as well as the amount of time and level of education needed to perform each intervention. The next chapter contains information on use of NIC in practice, education, and research, including how to select an intervention, steps for implementation of NIC in a clinical or educational agency, as well as the use of NIC in effectiveness research. In addition, available from the Center for Nursing Classification and Clinical Effectiveness is an anthology of early publications and an education monograph to demonstrate one program’s implementation and use of NIC and NOC in an undergraduate curriculum, as well as the linkage monographs described earlier. The publisher of NIC and NOC, Elsevier, maintains a Facebook page with current news about the classifications.


One indication of usefulness is national recognition. NIC is recognized by the American Nurses’ Association (ANA) and is included as one data set that will meet the uniform guidelines for information system vendors in the ANA’s Nursing Information and Data Set Evaluation Center (NIDSEC). NIC is included in the National Library of Medicine’s Metathesaurus for a Unified Medical Language. The Cumulative Index to Nursing Literature (CINAHL) includes NIC interventions in its indexes. NIC was included in the Joint Commission on Accreditation for Health Care Organization’s (JCAHO) accreditation requirements as one nursing classification system that can be used to meet the standard on uniform data. NIC is registered in HL 7 (Health Level 7), the U.S. standards organization for health care. NIC is also licensed for inclusion in SNOMED (Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine). Interest in NIC has been demonstrated in several other countries and translations into Chinese, Dutch, French, Icelandic, Italian, German, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Spanish, and Portuguese are completed or underway. Most of these translations are available in published book form (see Appendix E).


The best indication of usefulness, however, is the impressive list of individuals and health care agencies that use NIC. Many health care agencies have adopted NIC for use in standards, care plans, competency evaluation, and nursing information systems; nursing education programs are using NIC to structure curriculum and identify competencies for nursing students; vendors of information systems are incorporating NIC in their software; authors of major texts are using NIC to discuss nursing treatments; and researchers are using NIC to study the effectiveness of nursing care. Permission to use NIC in publications, information systems, and web courses should be sought from Elsevier (see the inside front cover). Part of the money to purchase a license comes back to the Center to help with ongoing development of the Classification.


Companion classification: Nursing outcomes classification


Following the development of NIC, we recognized that, in addition to diagnoses and interventions, a third classification, patient outcomes, was also needed to complete the requirements for documentation of a nursing clinical encounter. One of the NIC team members, Meridean Maas, sought out another colleague, Marion Johnson, who had long expressed interest in outcomes, and together they decided to form another research team to develop a classification of patient outcomes. They attempted to recruit different individuals so as not to dilute the strength of the NIC team, but some of the NOC team members were also NIC team members. This has been a strength, providing for continuity and understanding between the two groups. In the early years of NOC, Dochterman and Bulechek served as consultants to the new team. The NOC team researchers were able to use, or modify and use, many of the research approaches and methods that were developed by the NIC team. The NOC team was begun in 1991, and the first edition of NOC was published in 1997. The name of the classification and the acronym of NOC were deliberately selected so that there would be association with NIC.


Nursing Outcomes Classification (NOC) was first published by Mosby (now Elsevier) in 1997 with updated editions in 2000, 2004, and 2008.18 New editions of NIC and NOC are on a concurrent publication cycle. Patient outcomes serve as the criteria against which to judge the success of a nursing intervention. Each outcome has a definition, a list of indicators that can be used to evaluate patient status in relation to the outcome, a five-point Likert scale to measure patient status, and a short list of references used in the development of the outcome. (See Chapter 2 for one example of a NOC outcome.) Examples of scales used with the outcomes are: 1, extremely compromised, to 5, not compromised; and 1, never demonstrated, to 5, consistently demonstrated. The outcomes are developed for use across the care continuum and therefore can be used to follow patient outcomes throughout an illness episode or over an extended period of care. The fifth edition of NOC is being published at the same time as this sixth edition of NIC. NOC, like NIC, is housed in the Center for Nursing Classification and Clinical Effectiveness at the University of Iowa, College of Nursing. As with NIC, NOC has also been translated into several other languages and has multiple adoptions in both education and practice.



Center for nursing classification and clinical effectiveness


As stated previously, NIC and NOC are both housed in the Center for Nursing Classification and Clinical Effectiveness (CNC) at the University of Iowa, College of Nursing. The CNC was approved by the Iowa Board of Regents (the governing body that oversees the state’s three public universities) in 1995 with the name of Center for Nursing Classification. In 2001 the name was expanded to the Center for Nursing Classification and Clinical Effectiveness. The purpose of the Center is to facilitate the continued development and use of NIC and NOC. The Center conducts the review processes and procedures for updating the Classifications, disseminates materials related to the Classifications, provides office support to assist faculty investigators to obtain funding, and offers research and education opportunities for students and visiting fellows. The Center provides a structure for the continued upkeep of the Classifications and for communication with the many nurses and others in education and health care facilities who are putting the languages in their curricula and documentation systems. The Center is physically located in three rooms on the fourth floor of the College of Nursing. One of the rooms is a conference room with a small library. Currently, Sue Moorhead is director and Sharon Sweeney is the coordinator. They are assisted in their decision-making by an Executive Board composed of the editors of the NIC and NOC books. The Fellows (see p. xii) assist with the work of the Center. Financial support for the Center comes from a variety of sources, including University and College funds, licensing, permission and product revenue from NIC, NOC, and related publications, grants, and income from Center initiatives. A substantial endowment for the support of the Center has been raised through donations over the past decade. The endowment helps to provide some permanent long-range security for the work of the Center. Information about the Center and products and happenings can be found on the website http://www.nursing.uiowa.edu/cnc. The Center receives visitors who come for a short period of study as well as national and international scholars who come for an extended period to work on a project. The Center co-sponsors the Institute for Informatics and Classification, which has been held at Iowa since 1998. This Institute provides an intensive experience in current information about the classifications and their use, as well as cutting edge issues in informatics.


Questions sometimes asked about NIC


In this section we have tried to answer some of the common questions about NIC. Understanding the reasons why things have been done in a certain way (or not done) will assist in better use of the Classification. We began this section in the second edition of NIC and have continued to add to it. For this edition, we have grouped the questions under five related topics: (1) types of interventions, (2) choosing an intervention, (3) activities, (4) implementing/computerizing NIC, and (5) other. Questions 12 and 14 are new to this edition.


Types of interventions


1 Does NIC cover treatments used by nurses practicing in specialty areas?


Definitely yes. Many of the interventions in NIC require advanced education and experience in a clinical practice. For example, the following interventions may reflect the practice of a certified nurse working in obstetrics: Amnioinfusion, Birthing, Electronic Fetal Monitoring: Antepartum, Grief Work Facilitation: Perinatal Death, High-Risk Pregnancy Care, Labor Induction, Labor Suppression, Reproductive Technology Management, and Ultrasonography: Limited Obstetric. A similar list can be identified for most specialties.


The American Board of Neuroscience Nursing has incorporated NIC into their certification exam based upon role delineation surveys, which obtained information to define current neuroscience nursing practice.4 The American Association of Neuroscience Nurses has incorporated NIC in the organizations’ standards of practice and has identified the interventions core to neuroscience nursing, which appear in Part Four of this text. Susan Beyea2 encourages specialty organizations to use the available standardized languages when developing standards and guidelines of nursing practice for the population of concern.


2 Does NIC include the important monitoring functions of the nurse?


Very definitely yes. NIC includes many monitoring interventions (e.g., Electronic Fetal Monitoring: Antepartum, Health Policy Monitoring, Intracranial Pressure [ICP] Monitoring, Neurologic Monitoring, Surveillance, Surveillance: Late Pregnancy, Vital Signs Monitoring). These interventions consist mostly of monitoring activities but also include some activities to reflect the clinical judgment process, or what nurses are thinking and anticipating when they monitor. These interventions define what to look for and what to do when an anticipated event occurs. In addition, all interventions in NIC include monitoring activities when these are done as part of the intervention. We use the words monitor and identify to mean assessment activities that are part of an intervention. We have tried to use these words rather than the word assess in this intervention classification because assessment is the term used in the nursing process to refer to those activities that take place before diagnosis.



3 Does NIC include interventions that would be used by a primary care practitioner, especially interventions designed to promote health?


Yes indeed. Although these are not grouped together in one class, NIC contains all of the interventions nurses use to promote health. Examples include: Anticipatory Guidance, Decision-Making Support, Developmental Enhancement: Adolescent, Developmental Enhancement: Child, Exercise Promotion, Health Education, Health Screening, Immunization/Vaccination, Management, Learning Facilitation, Nutrition Management, Weight Management, Oral Health Promotion, Parent Education: Adolescent, Parent Education: Childrearing Family, Parent Education: Infant, Risk Identification, Smoking Cessation Assistance, Substance Use Prevention, and Self-Responsibility Facilitation. Medication Prescribing is an intervention used by many advanced practice nurses working in primary care.


4 Does NIC include alternative therapies?


We assume this question refers to treatments that are not part of mainstream medical practice in this country. Interventions in NIC that might be listed as alternative therapies include Aromatherapy, Autogenic Training, Biofeedback, Healing Touch, Hypnosis, Meditation Facilitation, Guided Imagery, Reiki, Relaxation Therapy, and Therapeutic Touch. Many of these interventions are located in the class “Psychological Comfort Promotion.” Other alternative therapies will be added to NIC as they become part of accepted nursing practice.


5 Does the classification include administrative interventions?


The Classification includes indirect care interventions done by first-line staff or advance practice nurses but does not include, for the most part, those behaviors that are administrative in nature. An indirect care intervention is a treatment performed by a direct care provider away from the patient but on behalf of a patient or group of patients; an administrative intervention is an action performed by a nurse administrator (nurse manager or other nurse administrator) to enhance the performance of staff members to promote better patient outcomes. Some of the interventions in NIC, when used by an administrator to enhance staff performance, would then be administrative interventions. Most of these are located in the taxonomy in the Health System domain. It should be noted that the borders between direct, indirect, and administrative interventions are not firm and some NIC interventions may be used in various contexts. For example, the nurse in the hospital may provide Caregiver Support as an indirect intervention administered to a relative of the patient being cared for, but the nurse in the home, treating the whole family, may provide this intervention as direct care. With the addition of more interventions for communities, we have added interventions that are more administrative in nature, for example, Cost Containment and Fiscal Resource Management. These are, however, delivered by the primary care nurse in the community setting or by the case manager.


Choosing an intervention


6 How do I find the interventions I use when there are so many interventions in NIC?


At first glance, NIC, with over 550 interventions, may seem overwhelming. Remember, however, that NIC covers the practice domain of all nurses. An individual nurse will use only a portion of the interventions in NIC on a regular basis. These can be identified by reviewing the classes in the taxonomy that are most relevant to an individual’s practice area or by reviewing the list of core interventions for one’s specialty (see Part Four). In those agencies with nursing information systems, the interventions can be grouped by taxonomy class, nursing diagnosis, patient population (e.g., burn, cardiac, maternity), nursing specialty area, or unit. Many computer systems will also allow individual nurses to create and maintain a personal library of most used interventions. We have been told by nurses using the Classification that they quickly identify a relatively small number of interventions that reflect the core of their practice.


7 How do I decide which intervention to use when one intervention includes an activity that refers to another intervention?


In some NIC interventions there is reference in the activity list to another intervention. For example, the intervention of Airway Management contains an activity that says “Perform endotracheal or nasotracheal suctioning, as appropriate.” There is another intervention in NIC, Airway Suctioning, which is defined as “Removal of secretions by inserting a suction catheter into the patient’s oral, nasopharyngeal, or tracheal airway” and has more than 20 activities listed under it. Another example is the intervention of Pain Management, which contains an activity that says “Teach the use of nonpharmacologic techniques (e.g., biofeedback, TENS, hypnosis, relaxation, guided imagery, music therapy, distraction, play therapy, activity therapy, acupressure, hot/cold application, and massage) before, after, and, if possible, during painful activities; before pain occurs or increases; and along with other pain relief measures.” Nearly all of the techniques listed in the parentheses of this activity are listed in NIC as interventions, each with a definition and a set of defining activities. The two examples demonstrate that the more abstract, more global interventions sometimes refer to other interventions. Sometimes one needs the more global intervention, sometimes the more specific one, and sometimes both. The selection of nursing interventions for use with an individual patient is part of the clinical decision-making of the nurse. NIC reflects all possibilities. The nurse should choose the intervention(s) to use for a particular patient using the six factors discussed in the next chapter.


8 When is a new intervention developed?


Why do we believe that each of our interventions is different from others in the Classification? Maybe they are the same but are called something different? We developed the guiding principle that a new intervention is added if 50% or more of the activities are different from another related intervention. Thus, each time a new intervention is proposed, it is reviewed against other existing interventions. If 50% or more of the activities are not different, it is not viewed as significantly different and therefore is not added to the Classification.


With interventions that are types of a more general intervention (e.g., Sexual Counseling is a type of Counseling; Tube Care: Gastrointestinal is a type of Tube Care), the most pertinent activities are repeated in the more concrete intervention so that this intervention can stand alone. This should not be all the activities, rather just those that are essential to carrying out the intervention. In addition the intervention must have at least 50% new activities.


9 In a care plan, what’s the structure for nic and noc? what do you choose and think about first?


The answer to this reflects the clinical decision-making of the provider planning and delivering the care. Individuals have different approaches to this, reflecting how they learned to do this in school refined by what they find works best for them and their typical patient population. As a general approach we suggest first making the diagnosis (or diagnoses), then select outcomes and indicators, rate the patient on these, then select the interventions and appropriate activities, implement these, and then rate the outcomes again. If you want to set goals, these can be derived from the NOC outcomes, for example, the patient is at 2 on X outcome and by discharge he should be at a level of 4. Sometimes, in some situations, this process is not possible or even desirable and one would want to use a different order. For example, in a crisis one would move immediately to the implementation of the intervention with the diagnosis and outcome left for later. The advantage of the standardized classifications is that they provide the language for the knowledge base of nursing. Educators and others can now focus on teaching and practice of skills in clinical decision-making; researchers can focus on examining the effects of interventions on patient outcomes in real practice situations. See the model in the next chapter that shows how standardized language can be used at the individual level, the unit/organizational level, and the network/state/country level.


Activities


10 Why are certain rather basic activities included in the activity list for some interventions but not others?


For example, why should an activity related to documentation be included in Discharge Planning and Referral and not in every intervention? Or, why should an activity related to evaluation of outcomes be included in Discharge Planning and not in all interventions? Or, why should an activity on establishing trust be included in Reminiscence Therapy or Support Group but not in other interventions?


Basic activities are included when they are critical for the implementation of that intervention (i.e., absolutely essential to communicate the essence of the intervention). They are not included when they are part of the routine but not a critical piece of the intervention. For example, hand washing is a routine part of many physical interventions but is not critical to interventions such as Bathing or Skin Care: Topical Treatments. (We are not saying that washing your hands should not be done for these interventions, just that this is not a critical activity.) Hand washing is a critical part, however, of such interventions as Infection Control and Contact Lens Care.


For the first time in this edition, we have included Patient Identification as an intervention. Although the identification of the patient is a critical activity for most interventions, the importance of doing this for current safety initiatives and the use of many new techniques and electronic devices have elevated this activity to intervention status.


11 Can I change the activities in an intervention when I use it with my patient?


Yes. The standardized language is the label name and the definition, and these should remain the same for all patients and all situations. The activities can be modified to better reflect the needs of the particular situation. These are advantages of NIC: it provides both a standardized language that will help us communicate across settings about our interventions and it allows for individualized care. The NIC activities use the modifiers as appropriate, as needed, and as indicated to reflect the fact that individuals are unique and may require different approaches. The NIC activities include all ages of patients, and, when used with adults, some of the activities directed at children may not be appropriate (and vice versa). In this case these can be omitted from an agency’s list of activities. Also, the NIC interventions are not at the procedure level of specificity, and some agencies may wish to be more specific to reflect particular protocols developed for their populations. The activities can easily be modified to reflect this. At the same time that we believe that the activities can and should be modified to meet individual needs, we caution that activities should not be changed so much that the original NIC list is unrecognized. If this is done, then the intervention may in fact not be the same. Any modified or new activities should fit the definition of the intervention. In addition, when an activity is being added consistently for most patients and populations, then it may be needed in NIC’s general listing of activities. In this case, we would urge the clinician to submit the proposed activity addition or change. In this way the activity list continues to reflect the best of current practice and is most useful in teaching the interventions to new practitioners.


Individualization of care is a core value of nurses. In fact, many standardized nursing interventions successfully tested in clinical trials have not been highly successful in improving outcomes in clinical practice, perhaps because they do not address individual characteristics or preferences for care.1 Researchers at the University of Arkansas have established a Tailored Biobehavioral Intervention Center (NR009006) to develop methods for selecting critical characteristics on which to address the individual characteristics of persons when testing interventions. NIC activities help nurses to individualize care.


12 Why are the activities not standardized?


Increasingly, as NIC is put into computer systems, we get asked this question. Those who design computer systems would like similar activities listed under different interventions to be worded the same so that it would be easier for them to create and use databases. So, we recently launched a project to systematically evaluate the feasibility of standardizing the activities. Two approaches were used. First, all of the nearly 13,000 activities in NIC were printed alphabetically using the first word (a verb) in the activities. One of the team members reviewed all of these and brought a sample to the NIC team for review. This approach revealed a small number of editorial concerns (e.g., missing commas before “as appropriate” or “as needed”) and a very limited number of activities whose wording could be made identical to similar activities without changing the meaning. The second approach was to identify frequently addressed topics (nouns) such as: referral, medication side effects, environment, procedure or treatment, intake and output, privacy, approach, trust, listener, relationship, support, and vital signs. Using a computer search program, activities that included the identified topic (e.g., referral) were printed. These topic searches resulted in lists of anywhere from 100 to several hundred activities. One of the team members reviewed the topic listings and two of these were taken to the NIC team for discussion. Various approaches to standardization were proposed but team members agreed that rewording activities would result in loss of meaning and content. After this systematic review and deliberation, it was decided not to pursue standardization of activities any further.


The reasons that NIC activities are NOT standardized are:



1. As we have emphasized in the past, the focus and standardization of NIC is at the intervention label level. Activities can be added, deleted, or modified for each intervention as the situation requires. Further standardization of activities would defeat the nursing value of individualized care.


2. When one standardizes, one loses information. Each activity was written for a specific intervention and loss of information may be a detriment for both the caregiver (clinician or student) and the care recipient (patient).


3. The activities already have a standard format and follow rules for development (i.e., begin with a verb, list in order of doing, meet the definition of the intervention, use an already worded activity from a related intervention if the activity is one that also fits the new intervention). Indeed, many activities already are worded the same across similar interventions.


4. If the activity lists were standardized, the upkeep of such lists would be too time consuming, cumbersome, and expensive.

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Dec 3, 2016 | Posted by in NURSING | Comments Off on ONE. Understanding NIC

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access