This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Henry, S. B. Articles by Mead, C. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Henry, S. B. Articles by Mead, C. N.

Nursing Classification Systems

Necessary but not Sufficient for Representing "What Nurses Do" for Inclusion in Computer-based Patient Record Systems

Affiliations of the authors: Department of Community Health Systems, School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, CA (SBH, CNM); CareCentric Solutions, Inc., Duluth, GA (CNM).

Correspondence and reprints: Suzanne Bakken Henry, RN, DNSc, FAAN, Box 0608, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0608. E-mail: nursing%sue_henry{at}ccmail.ucsf.edu

Abstract Our premise is that from the perspective of maximum flexibility of data usage by computer-based record (CPR) systems, existing nursing classification systems are necessary, but not sufficient, for representing important aspects of "what nurses do." In particular, we have focused our attention on those classification systems that represent nurses' clinical activities through the abstraction of activities into categories of nursing interventions. In this theoretical paper, we argue that taxonomic, combinatorial vocabularies capable of coding atomic-level nursing activities are required to effectively capture in a reproducible and reversible manner the clinical decisions and actions of nurses, and that, without such vocabularies and associated grammars, potentially important clinical process data is lost during the encoding process. Existing nursing intervention classification systems do not fulfill these criteria. As background to our argument, we first present an overview of the content, methods, and evaluation criteria used in previous studies whose focus has been to evaluate the effectiveness of existing coding and classification systems. Next, using the Ingenerf typology of taxonomic vocabularies, we categorize the formal type and structure of three existing nursing intervention classification systems—Nursing Interventions Classification, Omaha System, and Home Health Care Classification. Third, we use records from home care patients to show examples of lossy data transformation, the loss of potentially significant atomic data, resulting from encoding using each of the three systems. Last, we provide an example of the application of a formal representation methodology (conceptual graphs) which we believe could be used as a model to build the required combinatorial, taxonomic vocabulary for representing nursing interventions.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. Cho and H.-A. Park Evaluation of the Expressiveness of an ICNP-based Nursing Data Dictionary in a Computerized Nursing Record System J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2006; 13(4): 456 - 464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Karkkainen and K. Eriksson A Theoretical Approach to Documentation of Care Nurs Sci Q, July 1, 2004; 17(3): 268 - 272. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Coenen, H. F. Marin, H.-A. Park, and S. Bakken Collaborative Efforts for Representing Nursing Concepts in Computer-based Systems: International Perspectives J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., May 1, 2001; 8(3): 202 - 211. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				N. R. Hardiker and A. L. Rector Structural Validation of Nursing Terminologies J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., May 1, 2001; 8(3): 212 - 221. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				J. Ozbolt Terminology Standards for Nursing: Collaboration at the Summit J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., November 1, 2000; 7(6): 517 - 522. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. Bakken, K. E. Campbell, J. J. Cimino, S. M. Huff, and W. E. Hammond Toward Vocabulary Domain Specifications for Health Level 7--coded Data Elements J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2000; 7(4): 333 - 342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Bakken, M. S. Cashen, E. A. Mendonca, A. O'Brien, and J. Zieniewicz Representing Nursing Activities within a Concept-oriented Terminological System: Evaluation of aType Definition J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 2000; 7(1): 81 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. B. Henry, J. J. Warren, L. Lange, and P. Button A Review of Major Nursing Vocabularies and the Extent to Which They Have the Characteristics Required for Implementation in Computer-based Systems J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 1998; 5(4): 321 - 328. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				M. Corn Funding for Nursing Vocabularies J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 1998; 5(4): 391 - 392. [Full Text]

				N. R. Hardiker and A. L. Rector Modeling Nursing Terminology Using the GRAIL Representation Language J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 1998; 5(1): 120 - 128. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				R. A. Miller and R. M. Gardner Recommendations for Responsible Monitoring and Regulation of Clinical Software Systems J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., November 1, 1997; 4(6): 442 - 457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. E. Hammond Call for a Standard Clinical Vocabulary J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., May 1, 1997; 4(3): 254 - 255. [Full Text] [PDF]