Content validation of the NANDA-I nursing diagnosis risk for perioperative hypothermia (00254).

Autor: Schwanda M; Institute of Health Sciences, St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences, St. Pölten, Austria.; Institute of Nursing Science and Practice, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria., Brunner S; City Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland., Abreu Almeida M; School of Nursing, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil., Koller M; Institute of Sociology, University of Vienna, Wien, Austria., Müller Staub M; HANZE University, Groningen, The Netherlands.; Director Pflege PBS, Wil, Switzerland., Ewers A; Institute of Nursing Science and Practice, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.; University Hospital, Salzburg, Austria.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: International journal of nursing knowledge [Int J Nurs Knowl] 2024 Sep 23. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 23.
DOI: 10.1111/2047-3095.12491
Abstrakt: Purpose: The objectives of this study were to refine and validate the NANDA-I nursing diagnosis risk for perioperative hypothermia (RPH) (00254).
Methods: A quantitative, descriptive study was carried out according to the adapted diagnostic content validation model by Fehring. Data from a previously conducted literature study were triangulated with expert validation data to examine the nursing diagnosis RPH as well as potentially suggested new factors resulted from the literature review. In addition, the Wisdom of Crowds model was also considered. A nonprobability sampling technique, including purposive and snowball sampling methods, was used to recruit a panel of nurse experts. An anonymous and standardized questionnaire was developed in three languages for data collection. For validation, descriptive statistics, weighted ratios, and a one-sample T-test were used.
Results: Ninety-two nurse experts from seven countries and three continents participated in this study. Fifty-eight nurse experts (63%) were female, and 33 (36%) were male, with a mean age of 42.26 years and 19.22 years of working experience. The diagnosis label, definition, 4 out of 5 risk factors (RF), 6 out of 14 at-risk populations (ARPs), and 5 out of 9 associated conditions (ACs) were classified as major. One RF, eight ARP, and four ACs were considered minor. In addition, the experts validated 1 RF, 5 ARP, and 12 ACs from a previous literature study at least minor.
Conclusions: The nursing diagnosis RPH (00254) could be confirmed by specialized experts. No RF, ARP, or AC of the current nursing diagnosis needed to be rejected, and the added diagnostic indicators increased the robustness of the diagnosis.
Implications for Nursing Practice: A precise concept of the nursing diagnosis RPH improves nurses' clinical reasoning and strengthens an individualized, evidence-based care plan.
(© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Nursing Knowledge published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of NANDA International.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: